Lt Colonel faces action for promising permanent commission by paying Rs 2L bribe

The Army is conducting a Summary of Evidence against the Infantry officer after concluding a Court of Inquiry against him. The Lt Colonel had filed a petition in the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court challenging the order of additional Summary of Evidence against him but the same were dismissed.

A complaint was received against the Lt Colonel from a colleague alleging that he had defrauded him of approximately Rs 28 lakh by luring him to invest in a private company and further a demand of Rs 2 lakh was made to influence a selection board constituted for the grant of permanent commission to the Short Service Commission officer.

While serving with 20 RAJ RIF between September 10, 2017 to February 2018, the Lt Colonel is alleged to have persuaded his fellow officer and lured him to invest in a private company named ‘Rich Hands Pictures Ltd’.

He allegedly assured regular returns on scheduled dates of the scheme and charged 10% of the returns as ‘taxation and commission charges’.

Another allegation against the Lt Colonel was that he offered to influence the grant of permanent commission to his fellow officer who was a Short Service Commission officer. He allegedly asked him to pay Rs 2 lakh, which were to be paid to the Chairman of Permanent Commission Interview Board.

It was alleged by the complainant that the Lt Colonel has been involved in cheating and money laundering even in past. The Court of Inquiry indicated a prima facie case against him and post the Court of Inquiry, a Summary of Evidence was directed to be recorded.

The Lt Colonel represented before the court that the Summary of Evidence had concluded and no incriminating material was found against him. However, there was a direction for conduct of an additional Summary of Evidence, which is currently underway.

Petitioner impugns order dated 10.11.2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds at the stage when the Court Martial is held or before the Competent Authority after Summary of Evidence is recorded.

He contended that the proceedings are barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 122 of the Army Act, 1950. He submitted that there is a prohibition in conduct of any disciplinary proceedings after expiration of the period of three years from the date of the alleged offence.

He submitted that since the offence is stated to have been committed in 2017 and 2018 the disciplinary proceedings against him are time barred. Section 122 of the Army Act prescribes a period of limitation for trial and prescribes that no trial by Court Martial shall be commenced after the expiration of a period of three years.

The Delhi High Court noted that the prohibition under Section 122 of the Act is with regard to the trial by Court Martial. “It is an admitted case that as on date there is no decision by the Competent Authority to try the petitioner by Court Martial and the proceedings are only at the stage of Summary of Evidence which is a stage prior to the Competent Authority deciding to try any person by Court Martial,” the court said.

It added that the AFT has also recorded that the disciplinary proceedings are at a preliminary stage and the Competent Authority is yet to decide as to whether the Court Martial is to be held or not.

“The Tribunal has further noticed that at the stage of conduct of Court Martial, petitioner would have liberty to raise pleas of the bar of limitation as well as other objections and the same can be dealt with at that stage by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the Tribunal has disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the said plea at the stage when the Court Martial is held or before the Competent Authority after the Summary of Evidence is recorded. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in disposing of the petition while reserving liberty of the petitioner to raise such plea at an appropriate stage,” the court said.

The court also noted that even if the trial by Court Martial may have become time-barred, the same would not preclude the Army from taking appropriate disciplinary action, if so warranted, in accordance with law and dismissed the petition.