The Delhi High Court has ruled that the central government cannot be asked to withdraw a press release issued by the army, and that disciplinary action “can be taken” against the army chief and four others who had “exceeded their jurisdiction and defamed” a former Lt.General.
The court refused to direct the government to withdraw the March 5 press release in which army chief General V.K. Singh had accused Lt. Gen. (retd) Tejinder Singh of offering him a bribe.
Justice Mukta Gupta, while disposing of the petition of Lt. Gen. Singh, said: “The press release was not released by the central government, so it cannot be directed to disown, retract, or withdraw the press release.”
However, the court noted that the army chief and four other officers exceeded their jurisdiction and defamed Lt. Gen. Singh and thus a disciplinary action can be taken against them by concerned disciplinary authority.
“Respondent 2 to 6 (army chief and four officers) exceeded in their jurisdiction and defamed petitioner and thus disciplinary action be taken against them,” the court said, adding that “taking disciplinary action is a part and parcel of the concerned disciplinary authority”.
Lt. Gen. Singh had approached the court after the army chief issued the release that said he was offered Rs.14 crore in bribe to clear a tranche of 600 ‘sub-standard’ vehicles for the army. He moved the court seeking withdrawal of the press release that levelled “serious allegation” against him.
Accepting the government’s argument that the press release was issued by the army, the court said the statement was not issued by the Union of India or with its approval.
Additional Solicitor General A.S. Chandhiok appearing for the government said the press release came from the army and the “highest” in the army approved it. He said the government had nothing to do with it.
Justice Gupta said that in case Lt. Gen. Singh made any representation for taking disciplinary action against the army chief and other officers, action can be taken by the authority.
“In case representation is made by the petitioner for taking disciplinary action against R2 to 6, action can be taken by disciplinary authority in accordance with law,” said the court.
The petitioner sought from the court initiation of disciplinary action against the army chief and four other officers and its sanction for their prosecution.
“The press release contained ex-facie defamatory statement and false accusations against the petitioner. The press release is unauthorised and illegal. As per the rules, the army or its officials are not authorised to directly address the public through media,” the petition said.
Lt. Gen. Singh’s petition alleged that the army chief and other officers issued and published the release ostensibly to clear the army’s stand on the alleged bugging of the office of the defence minister and defame him.
He said: “The army officers abused and misused their official position, power and authority for their ulterior personal gains by defaming and bringing dishonour to the petitioner.”
-via The Economic Times.
TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON FOLLOWING ACCOUNT
1] FALSE DECLARATION OF DATE OF BIRTH ON ENROLLMENT ;UPSC FORM AS 10 MAY 1950[ Now he claims ]SO HIS COMMISSION IS NULL &VOID.
2] FALSIFYING DOCUMENT: GIVING DATE OF BIRTH ;ON 09,MAY 1966 IN FORM NO SP-44 HE WRITES DATE OF BIRTH AS10 MAY, 1950.
A] ON SAME DATE i.e. ON 9 MAY 1966 IN FORM NO SP-103 HE FILLED DOB AS 10 MAY1951.THE FORM IS SENT TO POLICE/CID FOR CHARACTER VERIFICATION.WRITING TWO DIFFERENT DATE OF BIRTH ON SAME DAY SHOWS INHERENT BAD INTENTIONS FROM GRASS ROOT.
C]IN IMA DOSSIER DOB FILLED BY HIM IN IMA ON 29 JULY, 1969 HE AGAIN FILLED DATE OF BIRTH AS 10 MAY1950. THE SAME WAS COUNTER SIGNED BY HIS OFFICER ON 30 JULY. 1969.
D]AG RECRUITING DIRECTOR NOTING OF 4 MAY VERIFIES HIS DATE OF BIRTH 10 MAY,1950.
E.THE DRAFT GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO 2558 DATED 18 SEP,1971 MENTIONS DATE OF BIRTH AS 10 MAY 1950.
F. ARMY LIST 1974-75 ALSO MENTIONS AS DATE OF BIRTH AS 10 MAY 1950.
G. TILL THE YEAR 2006 THE DATE OF BIRTH MAINTAINED IS 10 MAY 1950
H]. HE TOOK THREE PROMOTION IN GENERAL RANK AND THREE TIMES HE HAS ACCEPTED AS DATE OF BIRTH AS 10 MAY 1950.
H]IS IT NOT HIS CHOICE THAT ONE DAY HE ACCEPTS ONE BIRTH DATE AND OTHER DAY HE GOES AGAINST YOUR OWN ACCEPTANCE? NEVER EXPECTED FROM A SOLDIER.
J]HE HAS NOT KEPT HIS WORD OF ACCEPTANCE OF DATE OF BIRTH, A DISGRACEFUL ACT & UN BECOMING CONDUCT OF OFFICER. HOW SUCH AN OFFICER CAN WAS RETAINED IN ARMY.
K HE SHOULD BE SACKED; HIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY. HE HAS TARNISHED IMAGE OF ARMY, MOD, NATION & HAS SET A BAD EXAMPLE IN THE WORLD
3.NO CHIEF OF A COUNTRY CAN GO AGAINST HIS OWN GOVT . HE HAS GONE AGAINST GOVT THEN HE CANNOT CONTINUE AS PER HIS WISH?.. HOW MUCH TAX PAYER MONEY, ARMY & MOD TIME HAS BEEN WASTED BY HIM ,ON A BLUNDER CREATED BY HIM ONLY OF HIS AGE?
4] HE WROTE LETTER TO PM ABOUT ARMY .HE HAS BY PASSED CHAIN OF COMMAND[NOT INFORMED MOD & RM]
5]SENSITIVE ISSUE GIVEN TO MEDIA & VIOLATED SECRECY OATH
6] ILL TREATING HOODWINKING JUNIORS & TAKING THEM TO TASK. LATEST ONE LT GEN DALBIR SINGH
7. LAXITY OF COMMAND & UNABLE TO PROTECT OFFICER & MEN IN LEH EPISODE CASE
8. DEFAMING EX COAS [ EVERY ONE IS TAKING BRIBE PAST/FUTURE TOO WILL TAKE]
9.LEAKING VITAL INFORMATION OF DEFENCE STATE TO MEDIA
10.UNABLE TO CONTROL INTRUSION BY CHINA
11.PAID NO ATTENTION TO QUALITY OF FOOD TO TROOPS.SUB STANDARD FOOD BEING GIVEN TO TROOPS.
12 FAILED TO CHECK CANTEEN FRAUDS
13 FAILED TO CHECK ADULTERATION OF OIL/PETROL SCAMS
14.FAILED TO CHECK DEFENCE LAND ENCROACHMENT
15. FAILED TO PROVIDE WELFARE OF EX SERVICEMEN.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT: DATE OF JUDGMENT09/12/1986
BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) ]
A RESTORATION OF MY PENSION AFTER 13 YEARS.INSTEAD OF 15 YEARS IMPLEMENTATION LETTER NOT YET ISSUED. NO ACTION TAKEN BY HIM
16. ANOMALIES OF 6TH CPC 50 % DA MERGER AS DP FOR SERVING/RETIREE NOT TAKEN BY HIM
HE KEPT HIS PERSONAL INTEREST HIGHER THAN NATION/ORG/MEN & retirees
NATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH A COAS/OFFICER
There is still no repentance on his part. He is still doing so bravely (Not against the enemy) such acts thinking himself a Hero of all times. As if the Indian Army had been living without its Chief since its inception and the present one is the person who filled in the gap. The filler, if so, has brought more damage to the organisation. He does not know what he is throwing out of his mouth and mind & heart. Everybody is laughing at him & he thinks it is because they have liked his actions. (TAREEF KAROON KYA USKEE JISNE USSE BANAAYA –!!!!!!!——-????????)
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY INDICTED HIM .
“”"”the court noted that the army chief and four other officers exceeded their jurisdiction and defamed Lt. Gen. Singh and thus a disciplinary action can be taken against them by concerned disciplinary authority.”"”"
THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND IT SHOULD TAKE SUCH ACTION AGAINST THE CHIEF AND IT HAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO DO SO TILL THE 31 MAY 2012 FORENOON.