Lt General loses rank for illegal promotions

In an unusual order, the Delhi High Court has quashed two promotions of a sitting Lieutenant General of Army, terming them as “illegal,” and has relegated him to a lower rank of Brigadier. A bench of Justices Gita Mittal and JR Midha quashed the promotions given to Lt Gen SS Thakral, a 1974 batch officer, in 2009 and 2011 saying the Staff Selection Board exercised its powers in “bad faith” and without following established procedures.

“The established and undisputed facts which preceded the orders appointing respondent no 5 (Thakral), first as Major General and then as Lieutenant General, manifest the bad faith in the exercise of the power to effect the said appointments of respondent no 5.

“The respondents have ignored several relevant factors, which failure has offended against procedural propriety, making their decision in proceeding with the selections perverse and irrational, a facet of unreasonableness…They have therefore failed to comply with prescribed procedure, acted arbitrarily and abused discretionary powers,” the bench said.

The court quashed the proceedings and results of the selection boards held on August 12, 2009 and August 18, 2011, promoting Thakral to the ranks of Maj Gen and Lt Gen respectively, in Remount Veterinary Corps (RVC) of Army. The decision came on the plea of Maj Gen Shrikant Sharma, a 1976 batch officer, alleging the selection boards had shown “undue haste” and “bias” in promoting Thakral. Thakral is currently the Director General, Remount Veterinary Services (DG-RVS) of Army, a position he had taken over after his promotion to rank of Lt Gen.

Sharma had alleged his promotions got affected due to “illegal” decisions of the selection boards to promote Thakral as a “stand alone” candidate. Allowing the plea, the court said, “Respondent (Thakral) could not compete with his own 1974 batch mates and was not empanelled when he was first considered for appointment as a Major General. While being considered as a review case, he had to be considered along with the next available batch which was being accorded its fresh consideration.

“Consideration and selection could be effected based on the comparative merit of the overall profile of the officers. Instead the respondents have conducted facades of selection processes wherein he was the sole candidate… The illegal purpose was to ensure that only he was considered, selected and promoted to senior ranks irrespective of his comparative or relative merit.”

Sharma had protested against Thakral’s promotions, but no action was taken on his plea then. The Military Secretary’s office had issued a note on September 26, 2011, declaring that Thakral had been empanelled as a fresh case of 1975 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Lt Gen. The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed Sharma’s plea and later, he moved the court, which, not only quashed Thakral’s promotions but warned the Army saying such appointments would have “far-reaching and disastrous” consequences.

Asking the Defence Ministry and others to pay Rs 25,000 cost to Sharma, the court asked them to take corrective steps within six weeks. The ministry was also told to “hold a Special Selection Board for effecting promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General (DG RVS) for eligible officers” relating back to eligibility as on August 18, 2011.

-via IBNLive.

General vs General: Two promotions challenged

Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag

A senior Lieutenant General has challenged the promotion of two colleagues of his rank as Army Commanders and moved the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking quashing of such a move while seeking his own elevation to that post.

The two officers in question are Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag, who is likely to be the successor of Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh in 2014, and Western Army Commander Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra.

Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff Lt Gen Ravi Dastane recently filed the plea before the AFT seeking elevation as an Army Commander and quashing of appointment of these two officers, sources told PTI here.

If the plea is accepted, it can create a possible succession row in the force.

In his petition filed by advocate S K Sanan, Gen Dastane has pleaded that “appointment of respondent number 3 and 4 (Lt Gen Dalbir Singh and Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra respectively) to be quashed being in violation of a decision in Lt Gen Raj Kadyan’s case.”

Gen Dastane has asked the AFT to direct the Defence Ministry to give him the “status and appointment of Army Commander from June 1, 2012”.

Gen Dastane’s Statutory Complaint in this regard has already been rejected by the Army headquarters and the Defence Ministry had sent it to the Law Ministry for its advice.

Gen Dastane’s previous counsel Maj S S Pandey had earlier said that on June 1, the Government had kept the post of Eastern Army Commander vacant for two to three days before Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag was appointed whereas Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachhra was appointed as the Western Army Commander on June 1.

The post was not filled as just before retirement, Gen V K Singh had put Lt Gen Suhag under a discipline and vigilance ban for a failed intelligence operation in Assam but the ban was lifted within 72 hours of Gen Bikram Singh assuming office.

“On that day, Lt Gen Dastane was also eligible to be elevated as an Army Commander and we will plead before the AFT to give us that appointment,” Pandey had said.

If the plea is accepted, then Gen Dastane may become senior to Lt Gen Suhag, who is expected to succeed Gen Bikram Singh in July 2014 after his retirement.

Gen Dastane has commanded the 14 Corps in Ladakh and was the General Officer Commanding (GOC) when troops in an artillery regiment beat up their officers in Nyoma during an exercise.

The Army has ordered a Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the incident and its outcome is still awaited

-via The Hindu

HC slams Army promotion board

Ajai Shukla.

In an unprecedented indictment of the Army’s arbitrary promotion policy, Delhi High Court on Monday overturned an entire promotion board, in which major generals from the 1975 batch were evaluated for promotion to lieutenant general. The court also upbraided the defence ministry (MoD) for endorsing promotions that it knew were procedurally flawed.

Now, the Army faces the humiliating prospect of bringing back two major generals from retirement, since the fresh board seems likely to approve them for promotion. Worse, some lieutenant generals who were promoted by the impugned board could be rejected when legitimate promotion criteria are applied. This could trigger further litigation.

The case relates to two decorated senior officers — major generals Darshan Lal Chowdhary and VSS Goudar — who were poised for promotion to lieutenant general, until a delayed and procedurally flawed promotion board sent them home instead. The judgment found that the Army twice delayed the promotion board for “no justifiable reason”; then violated MoD orders by implementing a policy change that would work against Chowdhary and Goudar; and then quickly held the promotion board within three days of that illegitimate policy change.

“I was amongst the most decorated major generals in my batch and was heading for promotion, since military decorations weighed heavily in the prevailing promotion criteria,” says Maj Gen VSS Goudar , who was on former Army chief General JJ Singh ’s staff before successfully commanding Kilo Force, a counter-insurgency formation in J&K. “But the promotion board was repeatedly postponed until a new policy was illegitimately introduced, in which my decorations counted for nothing.”

The judgment concurs that the new promotion policy, which Army HQ calls the “revised Quantified Model”, should not have been applied in Chowdhary’s and Goudar’s promotion board. While endorsing the new model on December 23, 2010, the MoD ordered it should be implemented only from April 1, 2011. Ignoring that order, Army HQ promulgated the new policy on January 4, 2011, and held the promotion board just three days later, ie. on January 7, 2011. On January 6, 2011, a day before the promotion board, the MoD again wrote to the Army HQ that the new model was to be implemented only after April 1, 2011. Army HQ ignored that reminder, too.

The board rejected Chowdhary and Goudar for promotion, since their decorations for distinguished service no longer counted. And the MoD, knowing that its own orders had been violated, meekly ratified the board results, noting: “The Promotion Boards for Major Generals and Lt Generals are presided over by the Chief of Army Staff and has senior commanders of the Army as its members. It would be extremely detrimental to the discipline of the armed forces and the credibility of the system if the government cancels the entire proceedings of the Selection Boards comprising the top most generals of the Indian Army.”

The MoD allowed the flawed board results, even though the defence secretary noted on file that “there is a general disquiet in the environment at the delayed holding of the Promotion Boards and in making deviations from the extant policy which is reflected in the representations and RTI applications received in the ministry in this regard.”

“It is obvious that the defence secretary was more influenced by the credibility of the Promotion Board being adversely affected and not by the merits of the matter. He forgot that to commit an error is to do no wrong, but to perpetuate an error is to do a wrong,” said the Delhi High Court in its judgment.

Jyoti Singh, the lawyer for Chowdhury and Goudar, says: “We are looking forward to the quick holding of a fresh promotion board, in which my clients are well-placed to be approved.”

But Major General VSS Goudar is bitter about having to wage a long court battle for a legitimate promotion. “What is the charm in now being approved for promotion to lieutenant general? Promotion is not about monetary benefits, but about the pride of one’s achievements being recognised. One should not have to go to court for that.”

There are a growing number of disputes stemming from the Army HQ’s frequent changes of promotion policy, which successive Army chiefs modify according to their own perceptions. This includes an impending legal challenge from a senior lieutenant general, which, if upheld, could see him as the next Army chief.

-via Business standard

Generals’ promotion criteria changed without approval of defence ministry

Abhinav Garg.

In an unprecedented order, the Delhi High Court on Monday quashed the entire selection process of 2011 relating to promotions to the rank of lieutenant general in the Indian Army after it found that certain criteria had been revised without approval of the defence ministry.

The verdict quashing the Special Selection Board of last year is expected to have a huge impact on the seniority and promotions of the Army brass since the HC has now directed the Army to hold fresh SSB proceedings.

A division bench comprising Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Manmohan Singh also criticized the defence secretary for “perpetuating an error” since even though the bureaucrat was aware that the 2011 selection process was vitiated, he didn’t cancel it.

“It is obvious the defence secretary was more influenced by the credibility of the promotion board being adversely affected and not by the merits of the matter. He forgot that to commit an error is to do no wrong, but to perpetuate an error is to do a wrong,” the bench observed.

The HC was hearing a challenge to the 2011 SSB by two major generals who were overlooked. They had first approached the Armed Forces Tribunal but lost, prompting them to appeal in the HC.

Appearing for them, senior advocate Jyoti Singh highlighted the file notings of the defence ministry that showed the SSB of 2011 had committed a “wrong” by assessing officers on the basis of revised policy even though this policy had not been approved by the ministry. But the ministry was of the view that cancellation of the board would be an unprecedented stand detrimental to the discipline of the armed forces and credibility of senior officers of the Army.

On its part, the Army defended the selection process arguing it could not be termed illegal since the defence minister in February last year had upheld the names of officers recommended by the SSB. The minister said the names could be cleared after due scrutiny on the basis of the revised policy.

However, the HC dew a distinction between the minister’s go-ahead to the promotion and his stand vis-a-vis the revised policy in itself, which was illegal since it had not received the mandatory approval of the ministry.

The HC recounted how the SSB was scheduled to be held in October-November 2010 but was deferred without any justification. Later, the revised policy mooted by the Army Headquarters was notified even though it wasn’t approved by the defence ministry.

-via The Times of India.

Lt Gen Suhag’s promotion ‘unjust’: Ex-Navy Chief

Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag

Ajmer Singh.

Former Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral L Ramdas has fired a fresh salvo against Army Chief General Bikram Singh. In a complaint made on June 19 this year to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he has alleged that Gen Singh by promoting 3 Corps commander Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag to the position of an Army Commander has strengthened the notion of “line of succession” and also failed to demonstrate his impartiality.

Gen Singh, after taking over as the Army Chief in June this year, had overturned the decision of his predecessor and lifted the Discipline and Vigilance (D&V) ban on Lt Gen Suhag, who may head the Army in 2014.

The former Naval Chief has also requested the Prime Minister to appoint an independent three-member commission to conduct a probe into recent developments concerning the Army, including allegations of corruption made against senior Army officials and irregularities in the defence equipment procurement process, to check deeper malaise within the system.

Admiral Ramdas told The Indian Express that the Prime Minister’s Office has forwarded his complaint to the Ministry of Defence for “appropriate action”.

The signatories to the complaint include former civil servant M G Devashyam, former CEC N Gopalswami, Lt Gen P C Katoch (retd), Lt Gen O S Lochab (retd) journalist Sam Rajappa and Maj Gen Ashok Kalyan Verma (retd).

Citing low morale in the armed forces, Admiral Ramdas said, “There is a widespread perception that while the rank and file are subjected to severe disciplinary action for even minor offence, those on high posts with the right connections can get away with anything. Not only is this reflected in the most recent appointments to the highest offices within the Army, but also, and more seriously, has led to the disturbing view, circulating at many levels, that it is not worth fighting for a country that is in the grip of corrupt and conniving characters.”

Ramdas and other eminent personalities had recently moved the Supreme Court against the appointment of Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the next Chief of the Army staff.

The petitioners had questioned his ability to command 1.3 million strong Army, citing his alleged involvement in a fake encounter and UN peace keeping operations in Congo. The apex court had, however, dismissed the PIL, prompting petitioners to file a review plea in the SC, on the basis that the government had misrepresented and suppressed facts.

Admiral Ramdas, in his complaint, has also criticised former Army Chief Gen J J Singh for his “unfortunate TV interview”.

There is a “deeper malaise within the system — indicating years of brushing uncomfortable questions under the carpet. Within the Army, matters came to a head with the initiation of a so called ‘line of succession’ in 2006, which in turn seems to have triggered the needless controversy over the date of birth of one COAS, in order to install another as COAS in 2012”.

However, Gen J J Singh has denied all allegations about the line of succession.

-via Indian Express.

Rift in Army cadres over new promotion policy

Shishir Arya.

The issue of promotions is leading to a rift among different cadres of the Indian Army. The services and the supporting arms (non-fighting branches) have alleged that the promotion system discriminates against them vis-a-vis fighting units.

The Army is broadly divided into three categories. The arms include infantry, armoured, artillery and mechanized infantry while the services include service and ordnance corps as well as EME. The supporting arms are the signals, engineers, air defence and army aviation.

The problem is that the present system, implemented since 2009, hampers career prospects of those in non-fighting branches, creating an undue advantage for those in the arms to become full colonel. Promotions up to the rank of Lt Colonels are time-bound and selections are made after that.

It all began with a serving lt colonel from Army Service Corps (ASC), which deals in supplies, writing a letter to the chief of army staff (COAS) and expressing discontent over promotion policy. According to him, the policy strongly favours the arms and undermines the career prospects of those in services. It was an unprecedented event by itself.

However, a group of 19 officers of lt colonel rank, mainly from ASC, joined by a couple from the engineers later filed a petition in the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking a change in the policy. It is due to be heard next week.

There have also been instances of directors general (DG) heading some of the corps writing to army headquarters over the last year voicing similar concerns. TOI had access to excerpts of two such letters. Last week, some DGs have again sent letters on the same lines.

They are stressing that the policy is leading to dissatisfaction among personnel, creating an unhealthy work culture. Those in the lower rungs argue they did not join the services or supporting arms out of choice. The allocations are made when the officers pass out of the Indian Military Academy (IMA). Moreover, they also serve initial tenures in infantry regiments and earn gallantry medals while the services and supporting arms go into battle as a single division with the fighting arms.

A section of officers allege that the move to ensure faster promotion to the rank of colonel from the arms is to ensure that officers from the same branch get more presence in higher ranks like brigadier and major general.

Even as DGs are lobbying at the headquarters, lt colonels are preparing for their case to be heard at the tribunal. The group says the command-based model introduced after 2009 has led to their juniors in the arms superseding them.

The group of officers has collected documents by filing requests under RTI to prove their point. The policy, implemented on the lines of suggestions of the AV Singh Committee, was to lead to better career prospects and early promotions in armed forces. However, while implementing the new policy based on the recommendations the word ‘armed forces’, which meant the entire army, was replaced by ‘arms’. This indirectly led to an undue advantage for combat branches, alleged an officer in the group.

The new policy, termed command-based model, specifies that every colonel in the infantry stays in command of a unit for 2.5 years before moving ahead for a new stint. This period is three years for armoured, artillery and mechanized infantry. However, the command tenure for the services has been fixed at five years.

So, the turnover is faster in the arms and slow in the services and support arms. For example, a colonel commanding an infantry regiment will remain there for 2.5 years and move ahead for another posting. This will give another officer down the line a chance to become colonel. So a higher number of officers get a chance to become colonel in the arms while those in services remain stuck, said the source.

The army too is sensing the seriousness of the problem and a committee has been formed under a lt general to address the matter. TOI has access to excerpts of orders dated May 30, 2012, directing a holistic appraisal of the policy for allocation of select ranks as implemented in 2009. The terms of reference include suggesting modifications of any ‘caveats’ included in the policy. Caveats are the conditions put in place by the 2009 policy that officers from services and supporting arms are objecting to, say sources.

-via The Times of India.

Army promotions: Bench that heard Army chief case dismisses Colonel’s plea

Pranav Kulkarni.

His is a fight spread over nearly 16 years — not in the battlefield, but in the court of law. And the same bench of Supreme Court justices that the Army Chief’s date of birth petition dismissed a petition by city- based Colonel (retd) Vinay B Dalvi on Tuesday, putting an end to this marathon struggle. What it certainly put on the discussion forum, though, is promotions in the Army, a topic that has occupied much of media space in the recent past.

Promotion recommended for allegedly corrupt General

Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag

As CBI looks into Army Chief General VK Singh‘s letter seeking probe into the allegations of corruption against Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag, Defence Minister AK Antony disclosed on Thursday that the official has been recommended for promotion as a Commander of a sector.

However, the Minister said he was not aware of the Army Chief referring a complaint of corruption levelled against the Lt Gen by a Trinamool Congress to CBI.

“Sometime back, during one of the meetings, the Army Chief told me about the particular Lt Gen. Immediately I told him if there is any specific complaint he must take action.

“But lately, the Army headquarters sent a proposal to send him as Army Commander in one sector. I think the proposal is of March 22 to make him Army Commander. The Defence Secretary cleared it and when I checked up today in my office, it is pending. So, this is my information. The other thing (CBI inquiry) I don’t know,” he said.

A media report revealing the Army Chief’s action of referring the complaintagainst Lt Gen Suhag, who is in line to be the Army Chief after Lt Gen Bikram Singh, came on top of a battle of attrition between the government and Gen V K Singh in the last few days.

Meanwhile, CBI sources said it has received Gen Singh’s covering letter along with the complaint from the TMC MP Ambika Banerjee relating to some corruption in a procurement deal.

It is likely to write to Cabinet Secretariat and Defence Ministry seeking records of purchases in the Special Frontier Force.

TMC MP Banerjee had written the letter to the Defence Ministry in May last year, the sources said. Gen Suhag commands the Dimapur-based 3 Corps.

Gen Singh has now requested the CBI to carry out the probe into the allegations of corruption levelled by the MP in the deals of Special Frontier Force(SFF) when Gen Suhag was its Inspector General, the sources said. The Force works with Indian external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Banerjee has alleged that kickbacks were paid in the deals relating to supply of crucial equipment for the secret force ranging from night vision devices to parachutes, the sources said.

The MP has named a number of senior army officers who have allegedly received kickbacks in these SFF deals, they claimed.

The SFF, also known as Establishment-22, is a secret force raised after 1962 works under the RAW which comes under the control of Cabinet Secretariat.

According to recent media reports, the force is facing a severe shortage of crucial equipment like parachutes as procurements were halted after allegations of irregularities in their procurement were brought to light by officers.

-via DNA.

Promotion opens up can of worms in embattled defence ministry

Brigadier P.S. Rathore

Yatish Yadav.

Defence Minister A. K. Antony , already under pressure in the wake of army chief Gen. V. K. Singh’s age controversy, will have to tackle another storm brewing over the promotion of Brigadier P. S. Rathore, who is tipped to become the next boss of the force’s legal arm – the judge advocate general (JAG).

Lt. Colonel Mukul Dev has filed a contempt petition against the defence secretary, military secretary and the army chief, for declassifying the result of Brig. Rathore’s promotion, in violation of the order of the Kolkata armed forces tribunal (AFT).

The AFT bench had stayed the promotion of the Brigadier, currently serving as the deputy judge advocate general (DJAG) at the South Western Command HQs, through an interim order passed on December 19, 2011.

Lt. Col. Dev has alleged that the declaration of the selection board result for Brig Rathore’s promotion amid continuation of the interim order was intended to cause harassment, mental torture and with mala fide intentions and was tantamount to deliberate contempt of court by the respondents.

The MS branch issued a letter on January 13 this year to the Army commands which, the petitioner claimed, was contempt of the court. The letter declared that “the government has approved the empanelment of Brigadier Prabhu Singh Rathore, JAG, as a fresh case of the 1979 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Major General in the JAG”. It also said he would be promoted when the vacancy arises.

Sources said the MS branch had exceeded its brief and disregarded the AFT order. “The promotion result has been declassified, which can lead to contemptuous action. The AFT direction was not to take any action and included not declaring the result related to his promotion till the expiry of the interim order,” the sources added. The next date of hearing is February 7, 2012.

But senior army officials said on the condition of anonymity that there was no contempt of the AFT order. “There is no restriction on declassification of the result unless a stay on declassification is operating from the court of law. In this case, the stay is on final promotion and not declassification of result,” the officials added.

Lt. Col Dev alleged that a plain and simple reading of the AFT order would reveal that the army authorities were directed not to take a decision with regard to Brig. Rathore’s promotion. “The respondents were directed not to finalise the decision of the result…,” his petition stated.

In December last year, the AFT gave an interim order stalling the Brig. Rathore’s promotion after Lt. Col. Dev filed a petition alleging that he was harassed by his senior officials, including the Brigadier, by transferring him out of the JAG Branch in 2009 allegedly to spoil his career.

The Brigadier was earlier indicted in the court of inquiry pertaining to the same case but got away without any punishment. In his application, Lt. Col. Dev alleged that the Col was manipulated with mala fide intention to rescue the senior officials.

-via India Today.

Foul play in Army promotion procedure

A case of illegality in Army promotions has come to light where a Brigadier’s career records were erased in a ‘foul’ manner which had almost cost him his elevation to the rank of Major General.

The matter surfaced in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) which was hearing the petition of Brigadier V G Gole, who had alleged that a portion of his Annual Confidential record (ACR) was erased, which was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

The officer had approached the Tribunal for expunging he effaced portion of his ACR and considering his case afresh for promotion to the rank of Maj Gen after he was denied elevation by an Army promotion panel in September last year.

Allowing the petition, the Tribunal head Justice A K Mathur said, “It speaks volume that such kind of illegality can be committed against an officer. This is a serious matter and we are constrained to observe that it requires deeper consideration by higher authority.

“They should pinpoint the officer responsible who has played foul thereby affecting the career of the officer. We allow this petition with cost of Rs 10,000 and expunge the effacing of the ACR of the Brigadier from January to June 2009″.

The AFT said marks of the officer should be restored back and he should be considered for promotion to the post of Maj Gen in accordance with rules.

The Tribunal directed the authorities that the impending retirement will not come in way of consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Maj Gen.

-via Express India.