AN ARTICLE BY LT GEN HARWANT SINGH, FORMER DCOAS
(Perhaps the best article on the unfortunate episode.)
THE SUKHNA SCANDAL
On a piece of private land, adjacent to Army establishment
( Corps HQ ) at Sukhna, an educational institution was being
planned. Law does not permit construction of any building
within 1000 meters of a military installation. This law has
been breached at innumerable places. At Badowal ( near
Ludhiana ) marriage palaces and other construction has come
up next to an army ammunition depot, objections by the
military authorities not withstanding. A number of villas have
been constructed next to a very sensitive defence installation
at Kasauli, inspite of the IAF taking the issue to Himachal
High Court, where nothing came of it. A toll barrier has come
up next to ammunition depot at Lalru, inspite of serious of
protests by the army. The list is endless.
At Sukhna the concerned builder had approached the
military authorities for an NOC ( no objection certificate ) to
raise an educational institution close to corps HQ on private
piece of land. This was just to make sure that at a later stage
the army may not obtain a stay or seek demolition of the
buildings, through the courts. This request for NOC was turned
down by the army for security reasons. In fact army never
issues any such NOC. After some gap, concerned builder once
more approached the military authorities, for an NOC and on
its brochure had the picture of the present military secretary
( Lt-Gen Avadesh Prakash ) who was shown as the future
director of the institute. Being in a key position as MS at army
HQ, he pressurized those at Sukhna corps HQ to issue an NOC.
Thus it makes a case of gross impropriety and violates the
purpose of the law which ensures security of military
installations. Equally those who relented to this pressure have
become party to this misdemeanour, which included two generals
and few other officers. Gen Avadesh Prakash is involved in a
similar case at Ranikhet, where in addition there are allegations
of misappropriation of regimental funds.
Command Headquarters at Calcutta took a serious view of
this impropriety ( gross misconduct ) and ordered a court of
inquiry. The army commander at Calcutta has reviewed the
inquiry report and recorded his recommendations. It is now for
the army chief to examine the details of the inquiry report and
the recommendations of the army commander and take further
action. Ranikhet case is being dealt with separately by Central
Command.
Military draws its manpower from within the country,
where moral standards have fallen, corruption is rampant and
a climate of loot and plunder prevails right across the national
landscape. The difference is that this fall in standards is
unacceptable in the military. That is how military’s internal
mechanism searches out cases of corruption, misdemeanor
and misconduct etc, ( liquor, ketchup, local purchase frauds,
moral turpitude and Sukhna like cases, violators of civil rights
etc types,) irrespective of the rank of the miscreant and apply
to these the rigours of military law. It is not that every crook is
caught. Some do manage to hoodwink the system but their
number is minimal.
The process of application of Military Law has well
defined set of rules and procedures and these cannot be short
circuited without prejudicing the legal position. No senior
commanders in the chain of command is expected to show
undue interest is a case while under investigation and being
dealt with at the lower level. Military’s justice system is not only
prompt but eminently fair and this is borne by the fact that not
more than 4 to 5 % of the military’s cases are reversed by the high
courts/supreme court and that percentage is far less than
judgments of lower courts reversed by the higher judiciary.
The RM and the media ought to be aware of this. Therefore,
RM’s, ‘ summoning the Army Chief’ and telling him that severe
disciplinary action ( in the interest of morale of the army etc.)
should be taken against officers involved in Sukhna and Ranikhet
cases, tend to subvert the military’s legal system. Eastern Army
Commander is known for his sense of propriety, probity and
fairness. It was best to have left the case to his judgment at that
stage. What, if the President of India was to call upon the Chief
Justice of India to dole out severe punishment in a particular
case or take a lenient view! Now that the case has comes up before
the Army Chief and the RM, they can do whatever is proper:
keeping in focus the evidence on record, nature of the case and
army commander’s recommendations. .Nor should the RM try to
link this need for action against these officers with the morale
of troops. Morale is an area and domain entirely the province of
the Army Chief and his officers. What one expected the RM to do,
if he wanted to make morale of troops and officers his concern as
well, was to look carefully at the, distortions and disparities
brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission, as these relate to
the defence services and which have adversely impacted the
morale of troops and veterans and not left this vital issue in the
hands of the bureaucrats, who in the first place are the ones to
bring about the distortions. In this important area of his direct
concern, the RM has singularly failed.
Handing over the case to the CBI will achieve double
purpose.. One, it will put it on a long drive. Two, it will not be
possible to build a legal case against the officer (s) under the
civil law, for what they did.
Military does take prompt disciplinary action against
offenders, when and where they are detected, irrespective of
the rank. But do look at the MoD, which oversees the military.
Bhatnagar, as the defence secretary was charge sheeted by the
CBI in the Bofors case and instead of taking legal action against
him, he was moved as Lt-Governor to Sikkim, placing him
beyond the reach of, the ‘palsied arm of the Indian Law.’
Another defence secretary, Ajit Kumar was indicted by the Delhi
high court for tampering with the service record of a senior IAF
officer, which had resulted in denial of promotion to him.
Instead of taking legal action against him he was merely shifted
to another ministry. Yet another defence secretary was involved
in a shady deal in the purchase of one lakh rifles for the army
when no ammunition for these was available anywhere in the
world and for years these rifles remained rotting in the depots.
No action was taken against him. (It is only when he moved as
Chief Secretary to Tamil Nadu and tried the old moD tricks that
Iron Lady put him behind bars.) Had such misdemeanours been
committed by a military officer, the full weight of the military
law would have been applied on him.
So it is best to leave the army to deal with such cases.
Media, both print and electronic, whatever its compulsions,
should refrain from sensationalizing such cases, for they serve
no useful purpose except highlight its own naivety. Now that
we are on this subject of dealing with such cases, the media
may as well tell us what action has been taken against all those
officers of the MoD, involved in the Tehelka Sting Operation.
Additional Secretary who took a gold chain from the Tehelka
team was promoted, because, we are told, and hold your breath,
he did not take the chain home but kept it in the safe in his
office! While all the army officers involved in the case were
dealt with without delay, interference by civil courts not with
standing. One of then ending up behind bars and others faced
various degrees of disciplinary actions. In one case a general
officer was merely entertained to a dinner by the Tehlka Team
and that was enough to end, his otherwise bright career.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment