AFT upholds Captain's conviction, says keep ego in check while dealing with juniors

Vijay Mohan

Chandigarh, April 8

The Armed Forces Tribunal has, while upholding the conviction of a Captain by general court martial (GCM) for assaulting a junior, held that in dealing with subordinates, ego must be kept in check. “This case throws up life lessons not only for uniformed personnel but administrators in general,” the Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt-Gen Ravendra Pal Singh said in its order today.

“If a subordinate has misbehaved or has acted in a disrespectful manner, action should be taken only in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedure. Else, the situation may blow out of proportion and result in a situation never envisaged,” the Bench added.

The Captain was tried on two charges under Section 47 of the Army Act for using criminal force on a person who was subordinate to him and ill-treating him. He was awarded forfeiture of two years of service for the purpose of promotion and a severe reprimand.

The incidents had taken place in 2010 at an armoured regiment based at Tibri Cantonment adjacent to Gurdaspur.

The Bench observed that the appellant was a young Captain at that time with just about three years of service, who felt affronted by the action of his subordinate during morning PT and called him to the officers’ mess through a senior officer.

There, the situation took an unexpected turn and information spread in the unit that the subordinate had been manhandled and severely ill-treated by officers.

This resulted in a mutiny-like situation, which almost led to the disbandment of the unit. A number of personnel below officer rank were punished, with some of them being dismissed from service. Officers too were court-martialled.

The Captain had argued before the AFT that the findings of the GCM were perverse and the court had failed to take into consideration the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. He claimed that he had been made a scapegoat.

After perusing the proceedings of the GCM and analysing witnesses’ statements, the Bench rejected the Captain’s contentions and remarked that a prudent person commanding troops is expected to know the impact of his physical actions.