SC sets aside retd Lt Gen’s dismissal on charges of irregularities in ration purchase

🗞️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis 🗞️

The apex court has now found that the charges against the Lt Gen are not proved in the court-martial and nor has the AFT order justified his conviction on those charges. The Union of India had appealed in the SC against the reduction in sentence of the Lt Gen by the AFT.

In its judgement dated March 23, the SC has set aside the trial by court-martial and the subsequent decision of the AFT and acquitted Lt Gen Sahni of all the charges levelled against him. “The petitioner would be entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits in accordance with the law. The arrears of such benefits shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this judgment,” stated the judgement.

Lt Gen Sahni was commissioned in the Indian Army in December 1967 and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General in May 2003. He was appointed as DGST in February 2005.

An anonymous complaint was received in the Directorate of Supplies and Transport in April 2005 pertaining to several irregularities in supplies of rations. A Court of Inquiry was ordered against the Lt Gen under the direction of General Officer Commanding-­in­-Chief, Western Command, to investigate the seven allegations in the anonymous complaint.

The allegations pertained to the procurement of Kabuli chana through a contract finalised during April 2005 by Army Purchase Organisation. Tendering and procurement of 979 metric tonnes of Masoor Whole, which was supplied by GRAINFED, was also to be investigated along with any undue favour granted to any contractor for procurement of meat by HQ Central Command during financial years 2003­-2004 and 2004­-2005.

Any irregularity with regard to permitting a civil contractor to dump excavated soil within the compound of the Army Service Corps Centre and College of any undue favour taken from any contractor by an Army personnel at the college was also to be inquired into.

The Court of Inquiry only recommended for the award of recordable censure against the Lt Gen while recommending disciplinary action against other officials. However, as per the direction of the Army Commander, the respondent’s name was included in the list for disciplinary action.

The Court of Inquiry was finalised on June 24, 2006, and thereafter, the GOC-­in­-C directed disciplinary action against the respondent. The GOC­-in­-C, despite the recommendation mentioned in the Inquiry Report for administrative action, directed disciplinary action while admitting that there was no evidence of the acts of financial consideration against Lt Gen Sahni, who retired on September 30, 2006, after attaining the age of 60 years. However, he was attached under Rule 22 of the Army Act for disciplinary proceedings.

When challenged in the AFT, the subsequent act of the Army Authorities was set aside and it was held that resorting to Rule 22 of the Army Rules was totally unwarranted and illegal. The Army was, however, directed to resort to a Court of Inquiry after giving an opportunity to the respondent and to comply with the requirement under Rule 180 of the Army Rules.

In September 2009, the Court of Inquiry was ordered to be reassembled and in April 2010, on the basis of the Court of Inquiry, the Western Army Commander directed disciplinary action against Lt Gen through a GCM.

In February 2011, the GCM found Lt Gen Sahni guilty of six charges levelled against him and sentenced him to be cashiered and rigorous imprisonment for three years.

On appeal, the AFT, in October 2013, upheld the charges against Lt Gen Sahni but held that the sentence of cashiering and substantive imprisonment of 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment was harsh and thus, modified the sentence to dismissal from service. This order was appealed by the Government in the SC.

The SC, in its judgement, has stated, “The learned AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. The finding as recorded by the learned AFT is totally contrary to the material placed on record”.