AFT quashes disciplinary proceedings against Major General, raps Army for shoddy probe

Vijay Mohan

Chandigarh, September 7

Quashing disciplinary proceedings against a Major General for alleged irregularities in the purchase of security related equipment (SRE), the Armed Forces Tribunal has also taken the army authorities to task over the shoddy manner in which the probe was conducted.

“The complete proceedings of the Court of Inquiry (COI) is set aside and the petitioner is relieved of all consequential actions from this COI,” the Tribunal’s bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen PM Hariz ruled today.

The bench further directed the army to investigate the mala fide in recording of the CoI, the involvement of other officers in the procurement of the said equipments and take action as deemed necessary.

In March-April 2019, certain complaints were received in the Southern Command regarding incorrect procedures, including manipulation of terms of conditions for billing, resulting in fraudulent payments being adopted for procurement of SRE.

Later, a COI was ordered against the Major General, then posted as Major General General Staff (Operations), and responsible for overseeing the procurement process, to “investigate into the allegations of obtaining by illegal means gratification or any valuable things or pecuniary advantage for himself for facilitating clearance/ grant/ payment of ongoing SRE projects.”

The officer contended that the COI was ordered on the basis of verbal complaints, false accusations and false reporting by a Major, now a Lieutenant Colonel, who was the nodal officer for all matters relating to SRE. He also said that he had initially reviewed the complaints, made discreet investigations that revealed lapses on the part of certain subordinate officers.

He also averred that various statutory provisions were blatantly violated by the COI, thereby seriously affecting the applicant’s defence and his inability to place various evidence and matters in his defence before the COI.

The Bench observed that it is actually constrained by the poor compilation of the COI proceedings as it does not give the date on which various witnesses were examined and it has not been compiled chronologically thus making it difficult to comprehend why a certain statement or question was relevant.

The list of 40 exhibits in the main COI and 07 exhibits in the additional COI unfortunately does not reflect who had produced various exhibits and is not cross referenced. Besides non-adherence to stipulated provisions, The entire evidence available, including phone call records, was also not examined on brought on court record, the bench observed

“The manner in which the CoO has been recorded and compiled indicates mala fide, which casts major doubts on the intent of the presiding officer and the complete veracity of the COI,” the bench said. “Considering the importance of the case and the gravity of the charges being enquired into the presiding officer ought to have taken all such measures to ensure that none can cast any doubt on the proceedings of the COI,” the bench added.