AFT upholds armyman’s sentence for cowardice in fratricide case

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld the sentence of dismissal and one-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) awarded to an Army junior commissioned officer (JCO) in an incident of fratricide.

The sentence had been awarded by a summary general court martial (GCM) to the JCO for alleged cowardice and failing to act appropriately in the incident in which a lieutenant colonel was shot.

The AFT, in its order this week, observed that the response of JCO Sub Jaibir Singh showed cowardice in the face of the enemy wherein he, all along, focused and concentrated merely on self-preservation and had not taken any action to neutralise the jawan who shot the officer.

There were at least 50 armed persons at the post within 100m of the site of the incident and he could have ordered these troops to take action against the jawan. By his inaction, he has displayed cowardice and these facts have been amply proved by the testimony of not only prosecution witnesses but also the defence witnesses, the AFT said.

The evidence on record clearly establishes that during the incident in which Lt Col Saket Saxena was shot, the JCO did not take any action to control the situation.

This was despite the fact that he was the second senior-most person on the post and was also the platoon commander of the jawan who had shot the lieutenant colonel, the tribunal observed.

On October 31, 2006, jawan Suresh Chandra Behera, while posted with Delta Company of 28 Rashtriya Rifles, shot and killed Lt Col Saket Saxena, the Officer Commanding of the Company, and continued firing intermittently thereafter.

A court of inquiry had held the JCO blameworthy for the lapses and he was tried under relevant Sections of the Army Act. His trial had concluded in April 2007 and his appeal against the order before the Chief of Army Staff was rejected in 2009. Then, he sought judicial redress against his trial, contending that the charges against him were false and that there were procedural lapses during his trial.

-via The Tribune, Chandigarh

Pension for navyman after 36 years wait

Vijay Mohan.

After running from pillar to post, a disabled Navy sailor who had suffered head injuries on a ship almost 40 years ago has been sanctioned disability pension with effect from 1975.

Holding that the sailor was entitled benefits for 20% disability for life, the Armed Forces Tribunal also ordered the pension authorities to pay the sailor interest on arrears since 1975 at the rate of 12% per annum.

Jai Bhagwan Sharma enrolled in the Navy in 1965 and served till 1973. He had also taken part in the 1971 Indo-Pak War. During service, he hurt his head when a high-pressure steam pipe burst in the engine room of his ship in 1972.

After a long hospital stay, Sharma was boarded out of service on medical grounds. He began experiencing frequent bouts of severe headaches, which led to neurological complications, and was diagnosed as a case of neurosis. His disability was assessed at 20% and attributed to military service.

Sharma was granted disability pension of Rs 59 per month from June 1973 to March 1975 and Rs 50 per month for life thereafter. He was hospitalised twice in 1974 and 1975 for cerebral seizures and was referred to the Dr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for clinical investigations and treatment.

In 1990, Sharma was examined at AIIMS and found handicapped to the extent of 75%. He was under treatment for life and his vision has also become very weak.

In June 2001, when Sharma visited the Pension Distribution Officer for yearly identification, he discovered that the disability pension has two elements — disability and service — and that payment of disability element of his pension had been discontinued since 1975 without any reason or intimation.

Sharma wrote to the authorities for holding a resurvey medical board and also sought payment of his pension’s disability element from 1975. When there was no response, he moved the Delhi High Court, which directed the authorities to consider his representation within three months. Even this order was not adhered to.

What followed next was a series of legal and bureaucratic wrangling and in 2005 he received a communiqué that he was granted disability element of his pension — Rs 310 per month – with effect from 2004 for life. He made several representations for increase in disability pension but without any result and finally approached the Tribunal.

Pension authorities have submitted before the Tribunal that Sharma’s revised pension payment order was issued on November 23, 2011. The Tribunal, while expressing its ire over the attitude of the authorities and the manner in which the case was handled, observed that the departments concerned had been making Sharma run from pillar to post and ordered that he be adequately compensated for this reckless delay.

Testing times

1972: Jai Bhagwan Sharma suffers a head injury after a high-pressure steam pipe bursts in the engine room of his ship

1973: Sharma boarded out of service on medical grounds, granted disability pension

June 2001: Sharma discovers that payment of disability element of his pension discontinued in 1975

November 23, 2011: After a protracted legal battle, Armed Forces Tribunal orders Sharma be paid pension from 1975 with 12% interest

-via The Tribune

13 years after soldier’s death, widow gets pension

Vijay Mohan.

In a landmark decision emphasising that callousness towards human life would not be tolerated, the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal yesterday ordered exemplary compensation of Rs 10 lakh along with special family pension to Navindra Devi, widow of a soldier who had died in 1998.

The Bench comprising Justice Ghanshyam Prashad and Lt Gen HS Panag also directed that arrears of pension be paid to the widow with effect from 1998, along with interest.

The petitioner’s husband, while posted near Bikaner, developed psychiatric problems for which he was given electric shocks in a civil hospital. Thereafter, he was sent on leave to recuperate.

A few days after returning from leave, the unwell soldier walked out of the unit and went missing. He was found wandering near the Delhi railway station by the Government Railway Police (GRP) who requested the Army authorities to take him back to his unit.

However, rather than sending a team to bring back the soldier, his unit in Bikaner and the military authorities in Delhi kept writing letters to each another in this regard.

While the correspondence continued, the GRP let him go when no one from the Army came to escort him. His body was found the next day from a well.

The Army unit then showed him on leave retrospectively from the date he had wandered out of his unit. No Court of Inquiry (CoI) was conducted as Bikaner and Delhi authorities kept on shifting the blame.

After three rounds of litigation in the Delhi High Court, the court finally ordered the authorities to convene a CoI that was held 11 years after the soldier’s death.

The CoI, however, declared the death as not related to service factors and opined that the unit had readied a team to bring back the soldier from the GRP, but the team could not be ultimately dispatched.

Holding the unit responsible for callousness leading to death, the tribunal observed that there was extreme negligence in handling the issue since no care was taken to keep the soldier under medical supervision and then to bring him back from the GRP. The tribunal also observed that a CoI was not held which was mandatory under rules and the inquiry was held 11 years after the death on judicial intervention.

The tribunal also held that it was wrong for the authorities to have shown the soldier on leave retrospectively to evade responsibility. It was held that in terms of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Charanjit Kaur vs. Union of India, the widow deserved to be granted special family pension and appropriate compensation.

-via The Tribune

AFT stays discharge of 13 soldiers

Bhartesh Singh Thakur.

The Chandigarh Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has put a stay on the discharge of 13 soldiers of 24 Field Regiment, presently posted in Faridkot district of Punjab, on account of being in low medical category.

The soldiers have also not completed the mandatory 15 years of service required for pension benefits. The soldiers moved the Tribunal submitting that the Army’s action will deprive them of their right to livelihood. In the discharge certificate, it is mentioned that they are placed in Permanent Low Medical Category and are willing to continue, but their retention in service has not been recommended by the Commanding Officers of the unit and accordingly approval of Officer Incharge (Records) has been accorded to discharge them on medical grounds.

Counsel Rajeev Anand submitted to the court that the Army was following pick and choose policy as after filing of the original application in the court they had selectively chosen people for discharge and held back one Gunner’s discharge who was similarly placed in low medical category.

-via Indian Express.

Thrice court martialled twice dismissed soldier gets bail

Court-martialled thrice and dismissed from service twice, a soldier of the Assam Rifles, who was sent to jail last year on several charges, including violation of military discipline and causing hurt to his commanding officer, has been granted bail.

An Armed Forces Tribunal in Guwahati on Tuesday granted bail to Haider Ali who was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment on October 5, last year by a court martial which found him guilty on five charges.

Hailing from Saharsa district of Bihar, Ali was facing charges of physically hurting his commanding officer, writing to higher civil authorities on the grievances of the jawans at Assam Rifles, violating military discipline and initiating a signature campaign, Ali’s lawyer Raghavendra Jha said.

“The general court martial dismissed him from service and had awarded five years RI. We challenged the judgement on the ground that the accused was charged under the Army Act even though the Assam Rifles Act was in force,” Jha said.

The respondent — Union of India (Assam Rifles) — did not file its affidavit before the AFT headed by Justice (retd) HN Sharma till Tuesday.

An Assam Rifles official said the soldier was a ‘rebel’ since the very beginning and all actions taken against him were in accordance with law and military discipline.

Ali’s first brush with the Assam Rifles authorities began in 1997 when he defied his commandant’s order to shave off his beard, arguing that his former commandant had granted him permission to keep the beard.

He was court-martialled and dismissed from service that year itself. Ali, who had joined the Assam Rifles in 1987, challenged the order of the court martial and in 2002 the Delhi High Court set aside it.

It was now the Assam Rifles’ turn to move the Supreme Court against the High Court judgement, but the apex court too upheld the lower court’s order. Ali was reinstated and posted to Manipur in 2004.

“Ali had not only fought against his superior’s order, but had also written to the President, Home Minister and Defence Minister, citing around 40 grievances of Assam Rifles jawans,” says Jha.

Ali was kept under “detention” for 10 months till the Gauhati High Court ordered his release.

As many as 1,912 jawans had signed the representation, which said that though jawans of the Assam Rifles were doing the same duties as Army regulars, their pay and other facilities were not at par with the defence forces.

The Union Government sent the representation to the Assam Rifles and directed it to look into the grievances of the jawans.

However, Jha alleged, Assam Rifles allegedly implicated Ali on false charges of disobeying command and violation of good order and military discipline.

Again a court martial was ordered against him in 2007, but the GCM was dissolved on the jurisdiction plea of the petitioner, Jha said.

-via The Pioneer

Colonel accused of molestation approaches AFT for relief

A Colonel who is accused of molesting a woman in a hotel has approached the Armed Forces Tribunal against the Court of Inquiry (CoI) ordered against him by the Army.

Colonel Sandeep Singh is charged of “misdemeanour” against a woman in a hotel”s casino in Gangtok on December 1 while attending a higher command course there last year.

Denying the charges levelled against him, the officer has asked the Tribunal to quash the inquiry against him.

The final report of the CoI ordered by Army’s Sikkim-based 17 Mountain Division is still awaited.

Col Singh allegedly misbehaved with the woman in an inebriated state and was accompanied by two other similar-rank officers, who have been made witnesses in the case.

The Colonel had allegedly called up the hotel front desk and asked for a woman to be sent to his room.

-via MSN India

Forget sick father, army more important, major told

The Armed Forces Tribunal on Tuesday dismissed the plea of an UAV specialist Army major, who wanted to quit the Army to take care of his ailing father. The tribunal said army personnel resignation is not in national interest. “Since Major Sumit Sharma is a specialized officer in particular branch — Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations) — which is already running short of officers… we do not think proper to interfere in this matter as the national interest has higher priority than any other priority,” said the tribunal bench headed by Justice A K Mathur and Lt Gen M L Naidu.

Sharma approached the tribunal seeking directions to the Army to accept his resignation with immediate effect and relieve him with all the benefits from Service as he had to look after his ailing father. After the death of his mother in 2007, the officer had submitted his resignation which was also rejected.

The Army had opposed the resignation of the officer saying Sharma had received specialist UAV training as an observer in 2006 for Israeli-made UAV systems and was suitably employed as per his training. It had said that there was an acute shortage of officers in the Regiment of Artillery and the criticality was more profound for specialist officers.

The tribunal said “Since his services are indispensable to the Army because of his specialised training, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter,”

The officer, posted at Jammu, had contended that his application for compassionate posting to New Delhi to look after his sick parents, was rejected by his own Unit.

The petition was transferred in August 2009 from the Delhi High Court to the tribunal, which had asked the Army to dispose of his case in six months.

-via Hindustan Times

‘Defunct’ tribunal leaves army men in the lurch

On Friday, a 1971 war veteran breathed his last, and departed for his journey beyond life without a fair chance of seeking justice.

Captain (retd) Narendrakumar Bhosale, 73, had been pursuing a case to avail retirement benefits from the Indian Army. He, however, did not make much headway because of a non-functional armed forces tribunal in Mumbai. The tribunal was set up in September 2009 but has not been able to conduct any judicial work due to space constraint.

But captain Bhosale and many other servicemen like him do not have anywhere to go for justice as the Bombay high court does not have jurisdiction over their cases while an armed forces tribunal exists in the region.

The tribunal located ahead of the army canteen near the Afghan Church at Colaba is nothing close to a landmark. It can be identified only from a computer printout pasted on the building wall that shows the parking reservation for the armed forces tribunal.

“Although the tribunal has been set up, it is non-functional,” said Satendra Kumar, advocate for captain Bhosale and many other servicemen whose cases are in a limbo. “The only option left for servicemen seeking justice is to go to the principle bench in Delhi, which is not possible for most of them. Serving officers don’t get leave to attend court cases.”

The tribunal was set up as per the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. “There are seven regional benches — Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Kochi, Hyderabad, Jaipur, and Mumbai — with the principal bench in Delhi. Except for the one in Mumbai, all benches are functional,” Kumar said.

Captain Bhosale’s wife, Sheel, 61, said the government had let down the men who once staked their lives for the country. “He had been pursuing his case since 1998. He visited the administrative office in Allahabad, and relentlessly fought his case in court. He could never avail any retirement or medical benefits either,” said the wife of the 1965 and 1971 war veteran. “Had he been there, he would have explained his ordeal step by step,” Sheel told DNA over the phone from Pune. “Had the tribunal in Mumbai been judicially active, captain Bhosale would surely have got justice before his death.”

“Some of the servicemen are poor sailors who cannot afford trips to Delhi,” said advocate AP Singh representing many servicemen in court. “They come from interior parts of Maharashtra, Goa. What is the use of having a tribunal if it does not function?”

-via DNA

13 IAF officers file against discrimination

Thirteen Indian air force (IAF) officers filed a petition to the Armed Force Tribunal stating that denial of permanent commission to men by the air force is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and is liable to be set aside.

The air force officers are seeking permanent commission as was granted to female officers appointed prior to 2006, following a Delhi high court order earlier this year.

A division bench of Justice AK Mathur and ML Naidu have issued notice to the Centre and sought its reply by December 7, the next date of hearing.

Charging the IAF with discrimination, the petition states, “The petitioners have already put in 9-10 years of service are being denied the opportunity of grant of permanent commission on the ground that there is no requirement. But, on the other hand, 100 new and untrained officers are being commissioned every year, which is discriminatory in nature.”

The application further stated that a new Human Resource Policy was issued in 2007 without any notice to the applicants prescribing that no permanent commission would be offered to any SSC officer. The applicants moved the tribunal contending that the change in policy was introduced in November 2007 which could not be applied retrospectively to the applicants who were commissioned prior to 2007.

-via DNA and Law et al

IAF in a ‘very bad shape’: Tribunal

It seems the Indian Air Force is in a “very bad shape” and there is “petty-mindedness” among its authorities, the Armed Forces Tribunal observed today citing the kind of cases that are being filed by the air warriors against the Service. The Tribunal’s Principal Bench headed by Chairperson Justice A K Mathur made the remarks while issuing notice to the IAF and asking it to file a reply in a pension-related plea filed by a Corporal.

While hearing the case, he said that with the kind of cases being filed by the service personnel, it seems that the

IAF was in a “very bad shape” and showed the “petty-mindedness” of the authorities.

The case was filed by Corporal Chanderbhan Dhankar, who has been refused pension by the IAF even though he has served only five days less than the mandatory pensionable service of 15 years.

The Tribunal had last week too slammed the IAF authorities for their “arbitrary” approach against airmen and asked them to be more “humane”.

Hearing a plea by Corporal Ashit Kumar Mishra, who was not given an NOC by the Indian Air Force to join a group ‘B’ civil service job in Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal had termed such an approach as “suicidal”.

-via Hindustan Times