Indian Army: News & Discussion

[sanjaykumar]

It's annoying to see the headlines being preempted by "Muslim" ...


Yes...We should be more interested in his competence, not his religion.

As Pakistan implodes, Indian Muslims and Hindus will be freed from a number of curses. Then I am sure the headlines will be more appropriate.

[rohitvats]

Is this a statutory requirement? Where are the rules laid down? I ask out of curiosity...

I do not know the exact rules but something to do with Army Act.....one can't just go and arrest and Army Officer. Polica needs permission from the commanding officer of the concerned officer or jawan before they can arrest him.

[Rahul M]

other than a case of rape or murder, a military man can't be tried by a civilian court. that is my understanding of army act.

[shukla]

Indian Army, BITS Pilani plan collaborative research new
Domain-b

"It is the intent of the Indian Army to do its utmost to ensure that we collaborate with premium institutes such as BITS Pilani to utilse the full potential of technological knowledge and expertise. We are looking forward to a lasting fruitful association with BITS Pilani," General Singh said.Just as technology has revolutionised the Army, General Singh said, it is equally important to upgrade technology on an active and continuous basis so as to ultimately benefit the armed forces.

"We are proud to be called upon by the Indian Army to collaborate on science and innovation. We wholeheartedly welcome this opportunity and look forward to the association. We invite Army officers to take advantage of our postgraduate programmes and gain access to our innovative and effective work integrated learning programmes that have successfully enhanced the knowledge and capabilities of 16,000 professionals in the past," Professor B N Jain, vice chancellor of BITS Pilani, said at the ceremony.

Professor Jain reaffirmed the institute's continued support to the Indian Army both in terms of service and resources for collaborative research.
"Additionally we would like our students to work and spend time at Army cantonments to understand the gaps in the technology and specific requirements that can be developed by them," he added. "We thank General VK Singh for his support and leadership to develop this association. The prospect of collaborating with the Indian Army on research and education is exciting. The exact form of the collaboration will take shape in the coming weeks and will be announced," Professor Raghurama, director of Pilani Campus, said.

General Singh toured the institute and interacted with the students and staff. He also watched a demonstration of the humanoid `AcYut' built by the BITS students. The robot had won recognition at the national and international level. The Army chief invited the faculty and students of BITS Pilani to visit the cantonments and units to gain a better understanding of the Army's operation.

[nits]

other than a case of rape or murder, a military man can't be tried by a civilian court. that is my understanding of army act.

Detailed information can be find here - Click

[Sachin]

Those d*ck heads at CBI need to understand that one does not enter an Army institution (or any Services, for that matter of fact) and start searching it.

In this case it is going to be a tricky business, because the CBI was to investigate crimes against alleged malpractises in the very same instituition. And the chances were that if they give prior notice the evidences can be easily destroyed.

Also, the CMP needs to be present on the occasion.

Is the Corps of Military Police trained to investigate economic crimes, and seize evidences required for investigating economic crimes? Here if I am not mistaken the accusation is of bribery.

Also CBI would be hestitant to give prior information to Military Police, because they would fear that the news would get leaked out (after all CMP is also a unit in the Military).

Is this a statutory requirement? Where are the rules laid down? I ask out of curiosity...

This like many other aspects of Indian law remains ambiguous . From what I have heard is that a soldier can be arrested (at what ever location) if he is accused of commiting serious crimes like murder or rape. The police would submit their evidences to the Army authorities who would then get the man removed from service. After which the trial happens in a civil court and the sentences given would be carried out in a civil person. Infact this is what happened in the case of an Air Force Warrant Officer (and two of his Sgt. pals) in Kerala, who acted too smart and murdered a neighbour of the WO.

But in other cases like say a motor accident, what my friend in the IAF told me is that the case is charged in a civil court but the Police and the IAFP work out an arrangement. The police gets all the details worked out on the case, but the Air Force driver is taken into custody by the local Provost and Security Unit of IAFP. He is put in a lock up there. Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal is a civil court.

As regarding other minor infractions, I have heard a case that an Army Officer informing the Traffic Police he cannot be charged for violating traffic rules. The Police is supposed to write a formal complaint to the officer's CO who would give the neccessary punishment/reprimand. I have also personally seen a Traffic Sub Inspector charge sheeting and collecting the spot fine from a soldier who was caught for a traffic violation (not wearing seat belt). His Military ID was checked and used for noting down the full name.

[ASPuar]

More clarity on the matter. Apparently intimation to the Sub Area Commander is required as per government rules. Furthemore, permission is required from him. Finally, the complaint of confinement, made in the media, is apparently wrong, according to the Pune Police Commissioner, as per my post above. Lets see what happens. In all likelihood, the police complaint will be withdrawn, and an apology tendered. Otherwise, lets see what happens next.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/119 ... ising.html

Army accuses CBI team of sensationalising surprise check
Pune, Dec 8, (PTI) :

Army authorities here today accused a CBI team, which had recently conducted a ''surprise check'' at its Command hospital, of ''faltering in procedure'' and ''sensationalising'' the raid and stated that the matter would be taken up with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for resolution.


Addressing a press conference here, Brig. Rajbir Singh, Pune Sub-area Commander, said, "We are not presently contemplating any legal action against CBI, which has faltered in following procedure during the surprise check and lodged a false complaint against Commandant of the hospital Maj Gen S S Panwar accusing him of obstructing its work. We are, however, taking up the matter with the MoD to resolve it at the highest level."

The controversy had erupted after a CBI-Anti-Corruption Bureau team carried out a "surprise check" at the Command hospital here last week and seized an AC unit from its premises, acting on a complaint by a medical goods vendor who had alleged irregularities in purchases on part of the hospital authorities with a claim that he had installed a one tonne AC unit as an illegal gratification.

The CBI superintendent Vidya Kulkarni had filed an FIR against Maj Gen Panwar for "obstructing" the agency's work and not cooperating with the team during the check.

Brig. Singh said the Command hospital authorities fully cooperated with the CBI team although it was necessary for the CBI officials to intimate the local sub area authorities and seek prior permission for carrying out such checks on an Army unit as per the government policy and rules.

[Sachin]

Detailed information can be find here -

This is a good link.

(g) Section 125 - Choice Between Criminal Court and Court Martial. When a Criminal Court and a Court Martial have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the officer commanding the Army, Army Corps, Division or Independent Brigade
So it needs to be checked up which are the offences which can be tried by a Criminal Court and a Court Martial, or which a Criminal court and only try. As per Army Act it seems to be that when both courts and try a soldier, the final decision is made by the Army authorities.

Now as per the Criminal Procedure Code, the bible for the law enforcement agencies.
According to Section 45, no member of the Armed Forces can be arrested by civil police for anything done or purported to be done by him in discharge of his official duties, except with the consent of the Central Government. In other cases the civil police can arrest but is immediately required to inform the Commanding Officer about the said arrest.
This gives a soldier immunity from arrest only when he is discharging his official duties. And in other cases the civil police can easily affect the arrest, and are only required to inform the CO (and not hand over the soldier to an MP unit). So at first glance it looks like the police can arrest any soldier using the existing legal provisions which allows the police to arrest some one.

Need to check up more on other acts like Motor Vehicle Act to see if there are any special provisions for serving personnel.

[ASPuar]

^^
An Army Court Martial has the same powers and authority as a Sessions Court (Court of District & Sessions Judge). Therefore, they can try any criminal offence, and the appeal will lie to the Armed Forces Tribunal, or High Court.

In the case of the matter in Pune Command Hosp, looks like there is some procedure and rules exist, which was not followed, ie, intimation to and permission of the Sub Area Commander for the raid.

Sachin and others, as you are probably aware, the bare act lays out the bare legislation, while the ministries formulate the subordinate legislation (aka "Rules"), which are used to give effect to the act. I would really like to see what the Rules are, w.r.t. this matter. If any of you are looking, do please see if you can dig that up as well? Thanks!

[Sachin]

An Army Court Martial has the same powers and authority as a Sessions Court (Court of District & Sessions Judge). Therefore, they can try any criminal offence, and the appeal will lie to the Armed Forces Tribunal, or High Court.

Seems to be again conditional. See the link below.
A retired Indian Air Force sergeant, who was in judicial custody for allegedly killing his wife and two children, gave a slip to the guards and fled Victoria Hospital on Saturday afternoon.
This was a case in which an IAF Sgt. had murdered his wife and kids, and it happened some time last year. So looks like the case did not take the Court Martial route, but was taken as a normal police case and went through the Sessions Court way. And he was in judicial custody (basically in sub-jail, and not in any IAFP detention centre). So looks like there are guide lines in place to decide which the 'competent court' to try the case.

A similar case from the Navy..
In a similar case in which a Navy Officer was accused of murder the Bombay Sessions Court ordered the the murder trial should happen in a non-military i.e Sessions Court. The plea that the officer was a serving officer was thrown out. Also read one part of the report, in which a serving Navy man had killed two of his colleagues on INS Ranjit in 1985. In that case the court martial was allowed. His Session Court Trial seems to have got quashed by the Bombay HC.

[rohitvats]

^^^I know cases where the soldiers and officers have been court-martialled, stripped of their rank and other allowances due to them, and handed over to police for further course of action. These were then punished by the civil courts. Happened to some johnnies from a Sikh paltan in NE on charges of rape.

[ASPuar]

^^

Sachin, in general, if it is a case of Section 300 IPC (Murder), or Section 304B (Dowry Death), or Section 375 (Rape), any of which has occurred in a non military backdrop, the case can be handed to a civil court, or court can claim jurisdiction.

However, the power of the court martial (authorised cases, power to penalise) is the same as a sessions court, in all cases, and appeals from court martials go to High Courts in All cases. In the heirarchy of courts, therefore, a judgement of a court martial cannot be reviewed by a District or Sessions Judge.

Here is some interesting info on the matter, from the Instructions of Delhi High Court to its subordinate courts, for proceedings against Government Servants, which should clarify the law in the situation:

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/rules/Vol. ... pter6.html

6. Dual jurisdiction of Court-Martial and Civil Court—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) [See Section 475 of new Code], and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules for the trial of persons subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law, by a Court to which the said Code applies, or by a Court-martial, namely:

1. (1) These Rules may be called the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952.

(2) They extend to the whole of India except the States of Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur.

2. In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires:

(i) “Commanding Officer”:

(a) in relation to a person subject to military law means the officer commanding the unit or detachment to which such person belongs or is attached.

(b) in relation to a person subject to naval law means the commanding officer of the ship to which such person for the time being belongs; and

(c) in relation to a person subject to Air force law means the officer for the time being in command of the unit or detachment to which such person belongs or is attached.

(ii) “competent military authority” means the officer commanding the army corps, division area, corps or independent brigade or sub-area in which the accused person is serving and [except in cases falling under Section 70 of the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950) where death has resulted the officer commanding the brigade or sub-area or station in which the accused person is serving.

(iii) “Competent naval authority” means the Chief of the naval Staff, or Flag Officer (Flotilla) Indian Fleet or Commodore-in-charge, Bombay or Commodore-in-charge, Cochin or Naval Officer-in-charge, or Senior Naval Officer present; and

(iv) “Competent Air Force authority” means the officer commanding the command, wing or station in which the accused person is serving and when death has resulted (except in cases falling under Section 72 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (XLV of 1950), the Chief of the Air Staff.

3. Where a person subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried by a Court-martial, such Magistrate shall not proceed to try such person or to inquire with a view to his commitment for trial by the Court of Sessions or High Court for any offence triable by such Court unless:

(a) he is of opinion for reasons to be recorded, that he should so proceed without being moved thereto by competent Military, Naval or Air Force authority, or

(b) he is moved thereto by such authority.

4. Before proceeding under clause (a) of rule 3, the Magistrate shall give written notice to the commanding Officer of the accused and until the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of the service of such notice, he shall not—

(a) convict or acquit the accused under Section 243, 245, 247 or 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) [See Sections 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 of new Code] or hear him in his defence under Section 244 [See Section 254 of new Code] of the said Code; or

(b) frame in writing a charge against the accused under Section 254 of the said Code [See Section 246( 1) of new Code]; or

(c) Make an order committing the accused for trial by the High Court or the Court of Sessions under Section 213 [There is no equivalent Section to Section 213 of old Code in new Code] of the said Code.

(d) transfer the case for enquiry or trial under Section 192 of the said Code.

5. Where within the period of seven days mentioned in Rule 4 or at any time thereafter before the Magistrate has done any act or made any order referred to in that rule, the Commanding Officer of the accused or competent Military Naval or Air Force authority, as the case may be, gives notice to the Magistrate that in the opinion of such authority, the accused should be tried by a Court-martial, the Magistrate shall stay proceedings and if the accused is in his power or under his control shall deliver him, with the statement prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 549 of the said Code [See Section 475 of new Code] to the authority specified in the said sub-section.

6. Where a Magistrate has been moved by competent Military, Naval or Air Force authority, as the case may be under clause (b) of Rule 3, and the Commanding Officer of the accused or competent Military, Naval or Air Force authority, as the’ case may be, subsequently gives notice to such Magistrate that, in the opinion of such authority, the accused should be tried by a Court-martial, such Magistrate, if he has not before receiving such notice done any act or made any order referred to in Rule 4, shall stay proceedings and, if the accused in his power or under his control shall in the like manner deliver him, with the statement prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 549 of the said Code [See Section 475 of new Code] to the authority specified in the said sub-section.

7. (1) When an accused person has been delivered by the Magistrate under Rules 5 and 6, the Commanding Officer of the accused or the competent Military, Naval or Air Force authority, as the case may be, shall, as soon as may be, inform the Magistrate whether the accused has been tried by a Court Martial or other effectual proceedings have been taken or ordered to be taken against him.

(2) When the Magistrate has been informed under sub-rule (1) that the accused has not been tried or other effectual proceedings have not been taken or ordered to be taken against him the Magistrate shall report the circumstances to the State Government, which may, in consultation with the Central Government, take appropriate steps to ensure that the accused person is dealt with in accordance with law.

8. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing rules where it comes to the notice of a Magistrate that a person subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law has committed an offence, proceedings in respect of which ought to be instituted before him and that the presence of such person cannot be procured except through Military, Naval or Air Force authorities the Magistrate may by a written notice require the Commanding Officer of such person either to deliver such person to a Magistrate to be named in the said notice for being proceeding against according to law, or to stay the proceedings against such person before the Court-martial, if since instituted and to make a reference to the Central Government for determination as to the Court before which proceedings should be instituted.

9. Where a person subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law has committed an offence which, in the opinion of competent—Military, Naval or Air Force authority, as the case may be, ought to be tried by a Magistrate in accordance with the civil law in force or where the Central Government has, on a reference mentioned in Rule 8, decided that proceedings against such person should be instituted before a Magistrate, the Commanding Officer of such person shall after giving a written notice to the Magistrate concerned, deliver such person under proper escort to that Magistrate.

(Government of India Notification No. S.R.O. 709, dated the 17th April, 1952, as amended by Government of India Notification No. S.R.O. 1740, dated the 22nd September 1953 and No. S.R.O. 126, dated the 11th January, 1956).

7. Dual jurisdiction—In this connection also please see Sections 124, 125 and 126 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (No. XLV of 1950) and Sections 125, 126 and 127 of the Army Act. 1950 (No. XLVI of 1950).

[putnanja]

Army captain, injured in Sopore encounter, dies

SRINAGAR: An Army captain, injured in an encounter a day earlier at Sopore in north Kashmir's Baramulla district, succumbed to his injuries on Wednesday. A Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Ubaidullah Bhai was also gunned down in the gun-battle.

Baramulla DIG Muneer Khan said 21-Rashtriya Rifles' Captain Upmanyu Singh was injured while leading an operation to flush out the terrorist holed up in a house in Sopore's Model Town area.

Captain Singh was from Gwalior.
...

RIP sir!

[ASPuar]

RIP

[Sanku]

Come back soon Sir.

[Sachin]

ASPuar sir, thanks for the link.

Where a person subject to Military, Naval or Air Force law is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried by a Court-martial

Looks like there would be some other long law books which talks about what are the offences which can be tried by Court Martials, and which can be tried only by a Judicial Court in the civilian world.

Especially in the case of "summary offences" which does not go beyond the CJM court. Most of the traffic law violations charges are summary offences. And the nature of summary offences is that once the Magistrate gives his verdict, it cannot be appealed in any higher court. Are punishments meted out to soldiers for traffic violations?

Another point is about cases involving military personnel and civilians, especially in cases of motor accidents. From what I could glean from my IAF friend was that the case was tried at the civilian judicial courts.

And in cases involving army personnel and the police personnel. Who decides where the case should be tried? And if it is a court martial, what gurantee is that the police would get justice there? I am talking about cases in which army personnel have ransacked police stations and attacked policemen on duty.

[ranjithnath]

RIP to the brave soldier

[ASPuar]

Sachin, curious as to why you have postulated the last of the questions.. has this happened in your experience? I know it has happened once in a while, but they are very rare cases, though perhaps increasing because of frustrations, and disconnect.

There appear to be two seperate questions of law which you have raised:

Especially in the case of "summary offences" which does not go beyond the CJM court. Most of the traffic law violations charges are summary offences. And the nature of summary offences is that once the Magistrate gives his verdict, it cannot be appealed in any higher court. Are punishments meted out to soldiers for traffic violations?

Punishments certainly are meted out to soldiers for traffic violations, just like anyone else.

1a) Regarding Motor Accident Claims cases, most cases certainly will be tried in MACT tribunals or lower courts, depending upon the severity of the accident in question. This is, for instance, if a soldier is driving in the evening (in his or her private vehicle), to watch a movie, and someone hits his or her car, or he or she hits someone else's car.

1b) In the event that the accident occurs during the course of the exercise of his or her sovereign duty, the doctrine of sovereign immunity of the state applied, not only to the armed forces, but to all government personnel, and they were not liable. However, recent judgements may have modified this principle, at least within the state of Delhi, relying on the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Vidyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933. Nevertheless, sovereign immunity is a defence very often used by ALL government departments (the above case involved the jeep of the collector of Udaipur killing a person in a road accident, and the Supreme Court held that the state was liable).

And in cases involving army personnel and the police personnel. Who decides where the case should be tried? And if it is a court martial, what gurantee is that the police would get justice there? I am talking about cases in which army personnel have ransacked police stations and attacked policemen on duty.

2a) My understanding is that the Commanding Officer, or superior authority decides where the case should be tried, according to the army act. An example may be the Kolkata case, where subordinate police officials arrested two Majors under allegedly false pretexts, and then manhandled/beat them up them in a police station. Their officers subordinates allegedly freed them after discussions, and, upon seeing the injured condition of the officers, became enraged and landed a few blows on the policeman who had allegedly assaulted the officer. The impugned military personnel were not handed over to police custody after that, and were detained in Army custody, pending the holding of an army court of enquiry, and court martial, if required. In this case, the police commissioner had demanded that the men be handed over for trial by a civil court, but the army authorities and MoD had refused.

2b) The question of whether anyone will receive justice in a court martial is moot. The Court Martial has jurisdiction over military personnel, not over civilians. Therefore, if the accused is an army man (in your scenario, if, for instance, he is accused of assault of a policeman), he can be tried before a GCM. If, however, it is a policeman who assaults an army man, then the policeman must be tried in a regular court, as the Court Martial has no authority over him. At any rate, court martial trials are generally fair, and are personnel are attached to units other than their own, so that no favoratism is shown. Still, in the event that our fictional policeman who has been assaulted does not agree with the judgement of the court martial, the right of appeal to a higher court (High Court, Supreme Court), always exists, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

That is the essence of the matter. Similar courts also exist for the BSF, ITBP, and other Central Police Organisations, but not for state police.

[Sachin]

Sachin, curious as to why you have postulated the last of the questions.. has this happened in your experience?

Not any. But there are enough anecdotes of such incidents which happened with Kerala Police at one end and a unit stationed at Pangode Military Camp, Thiruvananthapuram. The incident is now more or less an urban legend ,and honestly no one have come up with facts on the same. So thought I would get some info on how such things generally are handled. The impression many folks have is that Army is totally immune to the policing agencies in India, even if they are involved in bashing up people (civilians and police officers) or do any other crime. The above post of yours clarified the situation quite in detail.

Looks like at some point the court martials and the non-military courts do meet up (eg: at High Courts or at the Supreme Courts) so no party is left high and dry. It depends on how both the parties fight out the case. Guess the determination of senior officers in both the forces (Army and the Police) to pursue the case all would determine the final out come.

Thank you !

[Jagan]

I have lost count of the number of times Army Vs Police fights happened in Secunderabad. . Usually it starts at the Railway Station and ends at the Police Station. It makes the papers with full brouhaha and is forgotten by the following day

[ASPuar]

@Sachin: Hey, no problem! Its good to see someone else interested in arcane legal matters!

[ASPuar]

The Pune drama continues...


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Hospi ... ing/722212

Hospital raid: Army, CBI accuse each other of lying

The standoff between the CBI and Army over a controversial raid at the Command Hospital in Pune last week took a turn for the worse on Wednesday, with the two accusing each other of lying.

While Pune Sub-Area Commander Brig Rajbir Singh refuted the CBI claim that “scores of Armymen” had stopped an agency team from taking possession of a seized air-conditioner at the hospital, the CBI Anti-Corruption branch said Customs officers who were present would testify to the incident and added that it was “really taken aback” by the Army’s claims. CBI Superintendent Vidya Kulkarni said the Army not only prevented CBI officials from taking over the seized AC, but also locked the room where it was kept and virtually pushed them out.

A Lt Col had been booked by the CBI for corruption for allegedly taking the AC from a private company that supplies medical goods to the Command Hospital, which comes under the Southern Command. Kulkarni said the Rs 14,500 bill for the AC was submitted to them by the vendor, Kannan Nambiar of Chinchwad.The CBI also contested the Army’s claim that proper procedure was not followed while conducting the raid. “When our officials reached the hospital premises, they sought the number of the unit chief. We were told to contact Hospital Commandant Maj Gen S S Panwar and we did that,” Kulkarni said.“For eight hours, they helped us scan documents and equipment. But when we tried to seal the AC, they resisted. For hours then, the officials led by the Hospital Commandant obstructed us from carrying out our duty,” she said.

The CBI said they have conveyed the facts to their Delhi office, which will take up the case with the Army headquarters.

The Army too has threatened to take up the matter with the Central government, even as it is planning to move a case for probing the “CBI-vendor” nexus.

The Army’s stand is that the CBI carried out the raid on a “trivial complaint” by a vendor who had been blacklisted earlier, and claim that the AC had been fitted in the vendors’ waiting room of the medical stores willingly by Nambiar’s M/S Shashi Enterprises. As for the officer being investigated for corruption, the Army has decided to deny the CBI access to him.

[Viv S]

The Army’s stand is that the CBI carried out the raid on a “trivial complaint” by a vendor who had been blacklisted earlier, and claim that the AC had been fitted in the vendors’ waiting room of the medical stores willingly by Nambiar’s M/S Shashi Enterprises. As for the officer being investigated for corruption, the Army has decided to deny the CBI access to him.

'Trivial complaint' is a very poor defence, even though its true that such cases are usually left to the local police. Unless the AC was paid for, its a clear violation of procedure. Even if M/s Shashi Enterprises had 'willingly' installed the AC, the hospital administration could not legally have accepted it since the company was registered as a contractor with them.

[Surya]

and claim that the AC had been fitted in the vendors’ waiting room of the medical stores willingly by Nambiar’s M/S Shashi Enterprises.

This is how nonsense starts

It ends up in marble tiles in the commandant\Generals house supplied willingly by the mess supplier.

[shukla]

US embassy cables: Pakistan home to 43 'terrorist camps' – Indian army chief
The Guardian UK

[ASPuar]

This is how nonsense starts

It ends up in marble tiles in the commandant\Generals house supplied willingly by the mess supplier.

Theres a difference. This item was fitted in a common waiting area, used by the vendors themselves, and not in anyone's house. Nevertheless, in another article, the Brigadier has said clearly that the non appearance of the item on the "Chargeable account", which is an account of items which the Army is going to pay for, is a violation of procedure, and the Army was cooperating with the CBI, until they violated procedure, and went to media.

Anyway, most mess suppliers dont have the moolah to fit an entire house of a General with tiles of any sort, and Generals dont deal with mess suppliers. In this case also, the commandant had nothing to do with this supplier, save for he was called into the matter as head of the Command Medical Service, and the CBI apparently chose him to slap a case against.

[ASPuar]

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/dec/09 ... I-Pune.htm

Army Officers Also At Fault: Brigadier

Pune sub-area commander Brigadier Rajbir Singh admits his officers did not follow procedure while accepting 'gift-on-charge', promises action against the guilty

Pune sub-area commander Brigadier Rajbir Singh yesterday had a difficult time defending his officers after allegations of them having obstructed officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during a raid on Command Hospital on December 3.

The raid was conducted in connection with a case of corruption against an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel.


Brigadier Singh acknowledged that army personnel were at fault for allowing a blacklisted medical vendor to install an air-conditioner in the vendors' waiting room at the Command Hospital. This according to him was an "unaccounted good", or an item not documented, and which should had been taken as a "gift-on-charge", that is the item should have been paid for, as is laid down in the procedures. "The officer in-charge had told the vendor to furnish the bill, but he did not. If the bill comes to us, we will pay them for it. However, the AC has not been documented and we allowed the CBI to seize it. Action will be taken against army officials who didn't follow the procedures," Brigadier Singh said.

He also accepted that his officers had informed him about the raid at the Command Hospital eight hours after the CBI team reached the unit to carry out the "surprise check".

But before he admitted to his officer's mistakes, Brigadier Singh accused the CBI of "faltering in procedure" and "sensationalising" the raid.

"The CBI had trespassed in a military area and action could have been taken against it. However, we are not contemplating any legal action against the CBI, which has faltered in following procedure during the surprise check and lodged a false complaint against commandant of the hospital Major General S S Panwar, accusing him of obstructing its work," said Brigadier Singh. "We are, however, taking up the matter with the MoD (Ministry of Defence) to resolve it at the highest level."

CBI SP Vidya Kulkarni said, "The commandant was taken into confidence for the surprise check and he had co-operated with us for eight hours. If the commandant wanted to inform his superiors, he could have done so. He produced documents related to other items like computers, but failed to show any purchase document related to the AC installed in the DGLP cell."

[ASPuar]

On the whole, while the CBI's attitude is regrettable, and irregular, the fact that any and all corruption matters, however minor, are being investigated, coupled with the harshness of military justice, should send out a very strong message. Im a bit tired of seeing the names of senior Army officers in tent scams, and egg scams, and Adarsh scams, and god knows what else sorts of scams.

Corrupt officers are, by necessity, pliable officers. And pliable officers are the sorts of men who trade away the interests of the Army and the well being of their soldiers, in exchange for favours from politicians and bureaucrats. And they are the sorts of officers who will lead us all to disaster.

[Surya]

Anyway, most mess suppliers dont have the moolah to fit an entire house of a General with tiles of any sort, and Generals dont deal with mess suppliers

hmm so you said 'most'.

and I did not say all.



ask the right people in Pune and they will tell you the stories. not just marbles - there are a lot of other 'gifts' festooning these @$##@%$# officers homes.


and seriously since when did you see such generosity from vendors. there is no free lunch.

thats all -

I have been in the office of a relatively small commandant in charge of a place somewhere in the hills and seen how many offers are thrown in a day. and this was an upright officer who rejected everything politely. The sad part is he was sent to replace the previous guy who was on the take and was cashiered as a result.

Imagine how much can happen in Pune which is huge in comparison and sadly it does happen.

An ex Brigadier took me around and showed me some of the results.


So while the CBI may have not followed procedures - why the eff do these guys have to give an opening ???

[ASPuar]

The generosity from vendors can be presumed, because it was for their own benefit, ostensibly, and to screw the guy who blacklisted him, ulteriorly.

I have been in the office of a Deputy Chief of Army Staff in Delhi, and seen what sorts of obscenely 'generous' offers are made, and the sorts of deals involved. And I have seen how the offerers have been tossed out on their ears also. Its a question of whos in charge.

I dont think there is anything such as an ex brigadier. A retired brigadier perhaps.

[Surya]

Its a question of whos in charge

agreed


yup ex meaning retired - me only simple man only know Brig level people

above that I leave it to Kaps

[Juggi G]

India Today » Defence » Story
War Strategy : The Collapse of Cold Start
Sandeep Unnithan

[Gaur]

Army demotes IMA cadet to the rank of Sepoy

[ASPuar]

^^

Yeah I saw that case.... the cheek of the guy is astonishing... what an air of entitlement! "I should only have been demoted by 6 months loss of seniority"! Amazing. Makes me question the system of promotion of rankers to officers.

In fact, makes me question the SSB, which selects officers. Ive seen some absolute twats being selected...

[Austin]

War Strategy : The Collapse of Cold Start

I really love our national security decision makers , first they come up with a doctrine that is designed to overcome the weakness that Ops Parakram bought to the forefront , then they scrap that doctrine because they are not sure what the N threshold of Pakistan is and because their adhoc decision making process is not suitable for the doctrine.

Then they deny that such a doctrine ever existed and all of these are known through leaked cables, thats called the most transparent decision making process

[pgbhat]

^^

Yeah I saw that case.... the cheek of the guy is astonishing... what an air of entitlement! "I should only have been demoted by 6 months loss of seniority"! Amazing. Makes me question the system of promotion of rankers to officers.

In fact, makes me question the SSB, which selects officers. Ive seen some absolute twats being selected...

He should at least be fired for being a thief no? why trust him with a weapon?

[Surya]

yeah worse how much willhe steal later ???

[Gaur]

- Demotion to the Rank of Sepoy.

- Humiliation of being of junior rank to all the jawans he used to boss around. They will now boss him around every day instead.

- Deduction of 12 lakhs from the measily pay sepoy. If he was fired, he may have got job in some private security agency. Now, he has no option to work in humiliation for years with virtually no pay.


I think this is a greater punishment than being fired.

[ASPuar]

He is humiliated alright. But rightly so. What he did was shameful. Petty theft. Disgusting.

PGBhats point is valid. Why place a man who now has a massive grudge against the army with a weapon?

I think that what will happen is that he will be thrown out of the Army. Reduction in rank to sepoy is a procedural precursor to that.

[Surya]

gaur

a humiliated employee is a bigger headache

more time wasted to keep an eye on him - people have enough headaches
could lead to dangerous things like .....