New Delhi, May 17
The Army Court of Inquiry (CoI) has recommended initiation of ‘criminal proceedings’ as well as administrative action against Maj-Gen
P. S. K. Choudhary, former Additional Director-General, Weapons and Equipment, while choosing to proceed cautiously against the other Army officers accused of accepting unlawful gratification from tehelka.com reporters posing as arms dealers.
The CoI, headed by Lieut-Gen S.K. Jain, which submitted its report to the General Officer-Commanding-in-Chief Western Command Lieut-Gen Surjit Singh earlier this week has recommended that Maj-Gen Choudhary should face criminal proceedings under the appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as administrative action by way of General Court Martial.
However, the CoI has been cautious in its recommendations against the other four officers, including two Majors-General and a Brigadier. It has recommended appropriate action against them for ‘conduct unbecoming of an officer of the Indian Army’. This is particularly so as the four have denied that they had received any unlawful gratification from the “arms dealers”.
The four have in fact contested the very basis of the allegations and according to reports claimed to have witnesses to the counter. As a result, at present they would be charged only under the Army Act and at a later date could face Court Martial proceedings or administrative action. The CoI has also found another officer guilty of misconduct.
Maj-Gen P.S.K. Choudhary is the only one who had admitted accepting unlawful gratification from the “arms dealers”. He had accepted taking money from men posing as representatives of a defence firm the day after the Tehelka tapes broke the scandal and revealed the corrupt practices being followed during arms procurement. Immediately after he had been placed under suspension by the Army authorities.
Sources in the Army said that the CoI has chosen to proceed cautiously against Maj-Gen Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, former Director-General of Ordnance and Supply (DGOS), Maj-Gen Satnam Singh, former Director-General of Operations Kargil Sector, Brig Iqbal Singh, and Col Anil Sehgal as the four are claiming to have actually thrown the money back at the men who were offering it.
The four claim to have witnesses
who would corroborate their version, which has left the CoI with little evidence against them for recommending criminal proceedings. The four claim that while there were recordings of their accepting the money, there was nothing to show their returning the money. However, they claim to have witnesses to this action of theirs. The CoI has also found Lieut-Col Sharma just guilty of improper conduct.
Sources said that the Army was also cautious in its approach as a parallel inquiry ordered by the Central Government and headed by Justice K. Venkataswamy was also carrying out its investigations into the scandal. The Venkataswamy Commission would take some time before submitting its report.
Findings by it, which if turn out to be contrary to the findings of the army CoI could leave the officers with the option of approaching the civil courts if immediate action is initiated against them. The Army wants to circumvent this scenario and wait before taking the final action.
As of now, the CoI report is with the Commanding Officer who in consultation with officials of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch would chalk out the further course of action. But that would follow only after the recording of the “summary of evidence”, which could still take some more time.
Sources said that if the officers are found guilty in the recording of summary of evidence, Lieut-Gen Surjit Singh would then have two options: Either to order a General Court Martial, which would consist of a senior Lieut-General, eight Majors-General and an officer from the JAG branch or push for administrative action against the officers for conduct found unbecoming of an officer. The latter having already been established as there were recordings showing them accepting unlawful gratification.
While pushing for administrative action, the Commanding Officer could either award severe displeasure in writing or verbally or serve show-cause notice under the Army Act (19) or Army Act (17) under which the service of the guilty officers can be terminated by the Central Government.
The Army Commander can also act under the Army Act (18) under which the President, the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, would terminate the services of the guilty officers as done in the infamous Samba spy case, without serving any show-cause notice.
Army sources said the guilty officers could face punishment under the Army Act (19).
