Tweet
Falling standards of integrity and character among the higher ranks of armed forces has got a worried Supreme Court to suggest that officers in uniform found guilty of acts of moral turpitude should not be retained in service.
The occasion for the court to raise the bar of punishment arose in a case where an Army Major defrauded the force by raising a fictitious bill of `77,692, which was later utilised for his personal use. A General Court Martial on October 1, 1987 held the officer Rabinder Singh guilty. He was sacked from service on the charge of “intent to defraud” the Army and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.
Justifying the punishment awarded to the officer, the apex bench of Justices JM Panchal and HL Gokhale said, “The senior officers of the Armed Forces are expected to be men of integrity and character….Therefore, any officer indulging into such acts could no longer be retained in the services of the Army, and the order passed by the General Court Martial could not be faulted.”
The decision has come at a time when several serving senior Army officials are facing probe for committing serious irregularities that led to personal monetary gain or caused wrongful loss to the government. The order of the Court may severely hit the fate of the accused Army officials involved in the Sukna Land Scam and the Adarsh Housing Society scam, where Court of Inquiry proceedings are separately on against three Generals, a Lieutenant General and Major General.
The apex court expressed its disgust for men in uniform indulging in acts of corruption. It said, “When any such charge (involving moral turpitude) is proved against a senior officer, the reputation of the Army also gets affected.”
Singh was the Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment from February 1984 to October 1986 when the reported illegality came to light. A signal special vehicle was allocated to each Army unit. In case of shortage, the unit was given the liberty to modify any existing vehicle, expenses for which would be disbursed by the Army. As per the then existing rate, `450 was the sanctioned amount that could be received.
Singh manipulated his authority and sought a claim of77,692 in two installments meant for modifying 65 vehicles. The Defence Ministry, in defence of the Army action against Singh, showed proof to the Court to indicate not a single vehicle was modified.
To the shock of the Army, Singh prepared fictitious documents and “pre-receipted bills” to cover up his wrongdoing.
The matter came to light when during the annual stock-taking, the records failed to tally with the expenses. The Army later found that counter-foils of cheques signed by Singh were issued in the name of the vendors, but Singh withdrew the amount in his favour.
After the Court Martial ruling, Singh challenged his punishment before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a single judge refused to disturb the finding against him. But as a stroke of luck, the Division Bench intervened and held that the charges were not made out against him. Against this order of July 2, 2001, the Centre approached the apex court.
The occasion for the court to raise the bar of punishment arose in a case where an Army Major defrauded the force by raising a fictitious bill of `77,692, which was later utilised for his personal use. A General Court Martial on October 1, 1987 held the officer Rabinder Singh guilty. He was sacked from service on the charge of “intent to defraud” the Army and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.
Justifying the punishment awarded to the officer, the apex bench of Justices JM Panchal and HL Gokhale said, “The senior officers of the Armed Forces are expected to be men of integrity and character….Therefore, any officer indulging into such acts could no longer be retained in the services of the Army, and the order passed by the General Court Martial could not be faulted.”
The decision has come at a time when several serving senior Army officials are facing probe for committing serious irregularities that led to personal monetary gain or caused wrongful loss to the government. The order of the Court may severely hit the fate of the accused Army officials involved in the Sukna Land Scam and the Adarsh Housing Society scam, where Court of Inquiry proceedings are separately on against three Generals, a Lieutenant General and Major General.
The apex court expressed its disgust for men in uniform indulging in acts of corruption. It said, “When any such charge (involving moral turpitude) is proved against a senior officer, the reputation of the Army also gets affected.”
Singh was the Commanding Officer of the 6 Armoured Regiment from February 1984 to October 1986 when the reported illegality came to light. A signal special vehicle was allocated to each Army unit. In case of shortage, the unit was given the liberty to modify any existing vehicle, expenses for which would be disbursed by the Army. As per the then existing rate, `450 was the sanctioned amount that could be received.
Singh manipulated his authority and sought a claim of77,692 in two installments meant for modifying 65 vehicles. The Defence Ministry, in defence of the Army action against Singh, showed proof to the Court to indicate not a single vehicle was modified.
To the shock of the Army, Singh prepared fictitious documents and “pre-receipted bills” to cover up his wrongdoing.
The matter came to light when during the annual stock-taking, the records failed to tally with the expenses. The Army later found that counter-foils of cheques signed by Singh were issued in the name of the vendors, but Singh withdrew the amount in his favour.
After the Court Martial ruling, Singh challenged his punishment before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a single judge refused to disturb the finding against him. But as a stroke of luck, the Division Bench intervened and held that the charges were not made out against him. Against this order of July 2, 2001, the Centre approached the apex court.
