New Delhi, Jan. 29: The army chief today ordered disciplinary action leading to court martial against his top aide, Lt General Avadhesh Prakash, two days after defence minister A.K. Antony overruled the recommendation for administrative steps.
A source close to Prakash said the military secretary, who is due to retire on January 31, “is a victim of power struggles going on behind the scenes”. Lt General Prakash will become the senior-most general to face disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action through a court martial can mean a sentence of imprisonment or cashiering (being stripped of rank and privileges) or both. The court martial’s sentence can be challenged in the armed forces tribunal and in the Supreme Court.
Only two other lieutenant generals have faced court martial so far.
In the same case as Prakash’s, the former commander of the Sukna-headquartered 33 Corps, Lt General P.K. Rath, is also to be court-martialled. He was already “attached” to the Eastern Command headquarters in Fort William, Calcutta, during the court of inquiry that began last September 30.
The court of inquiry, convened in Calcutta by the Eastern Army Commander and army chief-designate, Lt General V.K. Singh, concluded in December that Prakash had used his office to influence Lt General Rath and other officers of the 33 Corps in Sukna, north Bengal, to win a land deal in favour of his realtor friend, Dilip Agarwal.
Lt General Singh had recommended that Lt General Prakash’s services be terminated. Under service rules, military officers are accountable for their actions under the Army Act for up to three years after retirement. Lt General Prakash will now be “attached” to an army command where a general senior to him will preside over the proceedings against him.
After Antony overruled the army chief, the disciplinary proceedings against Lt General Prakash were a foregone conclusion unless the army chief, exceptionally, chose to disagree with or defy the minister. Lt General Prakash has the option of going to court against the action.
In an unrelated case, Lt General S.K. Sahni, one of only two other lieutenant generals to face a court martial, had challenged the order of disciplinary action. Delhi High Court had ordered a stay but the army continued with the proceedings after challenging the stay in the Supreme Court.
The litigation delayed, and continues to delay, the proceedings nearly two years after Sahni retired.
A source close to Lt General Prakash said the military secretary was “weighing his options” but he and his advisers had concluded that:
(a) There was no land “scam” because there was no evidence of pecuniary benefit and the land itself did not belong to the army; and
(b) There was no evidence that the military secretary had used his position to distribute “government largesse”.
When told that the court of inquiry report had repeatedly referred to the security implications in the Siliguri corridor and near the garrison headquarters, the source asked: “If that is such a security-sensitive area, why had the army not taken over the land in all these years?”
The report notes that the 71 acres in Chumta Tea Estate adjoining the headquarters of the 33 Corps in Sukna was in the process of being acquired by the army.
The Bengal government, says the report, was “favourably disposed” towards transferring the land to the army because of the “security implications”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment