Disclaimer

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Lt Gen Rath Convicted of Corruption in Sukna Scam


Lt Gen P K Rath, former Deputy Chief of Army Staff-designate, was today found guilty by an Army court martial in the Sukna land scam, becoming the highest ranking serving officer to be convicted for corruption.
.
The former 33 Corps Commander was found guilty on three charges by the General Court Martial (GCM), including issuance of the 'No Objection Certificates' to a private realtor for constructing educational institutions on a piece of land adjacent to the Sukna military station in West Bengal, sources said.
.
The other charges are signing of MoU with Geetanjali Trust for construction of the educational institute and for not informing his superiors in the Eastern Command about the proposed agreement.
.
The quantum of sentence to the officer would be pronounced on Sunday, they added.
.
Rath was informed about his conviction by GCM's presiding officer Lt Gen I J Singh.
.
Rath was facing trial on seven charges including intent to defraud but he has been cleared on the other four charges, his counsel Major S S Pandey said.
.
This is the first case where a serving Lt General rank officer has been found guilty of corruption. Earlier also Lt Generals have been court martialled but the convictions have come after their retirement.
.
Rath had been designated as Deputy Chief of Army Staff but when the scandal came to light in 2008, his appointment was cancelled and since then has been attached to different army formations for disciplinary proceedings.
.
An Army Court of Inquiry had found Rath guilty of wrongdoing along with Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the then Military Secretary to the Army Chief, Lt Gen Ramesh Halguly, the then 11 Corps Commander and Maj Gen P K Sen.
.
Subsequently, the Court Martial was ordered against Rath and Prakash while administrative action was directed against the two other officers.
.
Prakash, the senior most of the four, is also facing disciplinary action in the case and his Summary of Evidence (SoE) has been completed in the Eastern Command headquarters in Kolkata.
.
Halgali is presently serving as the Director General (Military Training) in the Army headquarters in New Delhi.


Sent by Mohan Raj

Punishment by Court Martial

Lt Gen P K Rath, the senior-most serving officer to be convicted for corruption, was today given a sentence of severe reprimand and two-year loss of seniority by an Army Court Martial before which he broke down while the verdict was being pronounced.
.
Rath will also have to undergo 15 years of loss of service for pensionary benefits for being guilty in the Sukna land scam.
.
"To take rank and precedence as if appointment as substantiating Lt Gen bore dated May 24, 2010, forfeiture of 15 years service for pensionary benefits and severely reprimand," General Court Martial (GCM) Presiding Officer Lt Gen I J Singh said in his verdict.
.
The two-year loss of seniority would mean that the officer who took the three-star rank in May 2008, would be now considered as being promoted as Lt Gen from May 2010 only. He has one more year of service left.
.
Rath was found guilty by the court yesterday on three counts but four other charges including 'intent to defraud' were dropped.
.
Rath broke down in the court while the judgement was being pronounced.
.
Expressing gratitude to the GCM for dropping the defraud charges, he said, "This has removed the stigma which has been haunting me ever since the chargesheet was filed in the case."
.
The order is subject to confirmation by the Defence Ministry.
.
Rath, former Deputy Chief of Army Staff-designate, was found guilty of issuing a 'No-Objection Certificate' in the capacity of 33 Corps Commander to a private realtor for constructing educational institutions on a piece of land adjacent to the Sukna military station in West Bengal.
.
The other two charges for which he was found guilty are signing of MoU with Geetanjali Trust for construction of the educational institute and for not informing his superiors in the Eastern Command about the proposed agreement.
.
The four charges of 'intent to defraud' against the officer were dropped by the GCM.
.
In his order Lt Gen I J Singh said, "After carefully considering the case and the statements of the witnesses, it has been found that there is no evidence that the accused could have gained anything or cause injury to anyone."
.
"He has never told any officer to keep the matter as secret. Efforts were made to safeguard the interests of the army by ensuring that security is not compromised, and reservations in the proposed educational institution for the students and family of the army men," Singh said, adding there was "no deceit or secrecy in the signing of the MoU."
.
Holding Rath guilty for not informing the superior authorities about the change in decision, Singh said, "But it was his duty to inform and seek approval of the headquarters Eastern Command. His action is prejudicial to good order and military discipline."
.
The sentence of 15 years loss of service for pensionary benefits to Rath would mean a substantial decrease of 35-40 per cent in pension.
.
"Though the pension would be for the rank of Lt Gen only but it will be calculated for 25 years of service and not 40 years," Rath's counsel Major S S Pandey said here.
.
Rath had been designated as Deputy Chief of Army Staff but when the scandal came to light in 2008, his appointment was cancelled and since then he has been attached to different army formations for disciplinary proceedings.
.
An Army Court of Inquiry had found Rath guilty of wrongdoing along with Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the then Military Secretary to the Army Chief, Lt Gen Ramesh Halgali, the then 11 Corps Commander and Maj Gen P K Sen.
.
Subsequently, the Court Martial was ordered against Rath and Prakash while administrative action was directed against the two other officers.
.
Prakash, the senior most of the four, is also facing disciplinary action in the case and his Summary of Evidence (SoE) has been completed in the Eastern Command headquarters in Kolkata.
.
Halgali is presently serving as the Director General (Military Training) in the Army headquarters in New Delhi.
.
sent by Mohan Raj

4 comments:

  1. Dear Friend,

    It is too small a punishment. Guiding principle is ''HIGHER YOU GO HARDER YOU FALL''. Loss of seniority to a Lt Gen means nothing. Also some loss in pension is peanuts for a person who would have made millions by giving NOC.

    Why the trouble of a GCM for this? '' Khoda Pahar aur mila chuha'' (You dig up a mountain and all you find is a rat)

    He should have been cashiered.


    With Warm Regards,
    Yours' Sincerely,

    Brig Harwant Singh (Retd)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Brigadier,

    Your sentiments may be correct viewed from the perspective of the highest standards, the General Officers are supposed to set for their subordinates to follow. A number of mails have been penned in this connection, including reports from the press. NDTV has quoted Prof Rath, brother of Lt Gen Rath, as to have stated that India is not ruled by 'Martial Law'. It definitely is not & that is the reason why the accused officers were tried by a Military Court, which is called Court Martial. Unfortunately the Prof is misleading the public by bringing in Martial Law.

    The sentence awarded is not final, till the same is confirmed by the Confirming Authority, who has the powers to concur, reduce, or even differ the sentence awarded by the Court Martial. Further, this can be challenged in the Supreme Court, if the defendant so desires.

    We all have only limited knowledge of the case, which is based on the reports of the Press & the Media. The Members of the Court Martial, would have definitely had much more details & were privy to the statement of witnesses during cross examination. After considering all aspects, if the Court Martial had awarded any sentence or even acquittal of the accused, we, in my humble opinion have no reason to doubt the institution & its verdict.

    In any case this is not the end of the case. The final outcome will be known only after confirmation by the proper authority.

    Regards & Best Wishes,

    Veteran Raman

    ReplyDelete
  3. in two Parts Part - 1

    Sentence by the GCM to Lt Gen Rath.

    Dear Brig Kamboj Sir,

    I was analysing the sentence pronounced by the General Court Martial in the case of Lt Gen Rath.

    Lt Gen Rath has been found 'Guilty' on three counts and has been sentenced to:

    i) two years loss of seniority.

    ii) 15 years loss of service for the purposes of pension.

    iii) reprimand or perhaps 'Severe Reprimand' as different media reports have reported differentl.

    If one analysis the first punishment, it means nothing, as loss of two years seniority at the fag end of his career really means nothing.

    The second punsishment too is an eye wash. Considering that those retiring after 1.9.2008 are entitled to full pension after rendering 20 years of qualifying service, Rath would have still more than 20 years even after loss of 15 years service for the purpose of pension and thus eligible for full pension in the rank of Lt Gen.

    Even in terms of the earlier Rules he would have been eligible to full or almost full pension. Considering Rath renders 40-41 years service by the time he retires, with such punishment his service for pension would be reduced to 25-26 years. With seven years of weightage that all officers get he would have got 32-33 years of service for pension, thus making him eligible for full pension in the rank of Lt Gen.

    The third punishment at this stage of his career means nothing as 'Reprimand' does not come in any manner in one's promotion. Only 'Severe Reprimand' disentitles one for consideration for next promotion for two years and I dont think Rath was in reckoning for promotion to COAS post. Yes, he would not be eligible to be considered for Army Cdr's post. But then the present Chief in any case, GCM or no GCM, would not have taken him to be one of his Army Cdrs. It is purely COAS prerogative as to who all he elects to be his Army Cdrs. (Apex Court in Sham Kumar's case has ruled so. Col Sham Kumar was selected by the Selection Board for Brig rank. But the COAS then did not approve him for Brig rank. Apex Court held that it is COAS prerogative to select his team as he is answerable for Country's defence). Another case in sight is of Lt Gen Kadyan. Lt Gen Kadyan though senior to Kalkat, yet was denied Army Cdr's post and Kalkat being junior was selected as GOC-in-C Eastern Command.

    Armed Forces want to set example of sorts to enforce dsicipline. A sepoy is court martialled and dismissed from service on overstaying leave, even if he has reasons top explain. I fought for one such Jawan who was dismissed from service for overstaing leave although the overstayal was due to his having fallen into a ditch and fracturing his leg. He was admitted in a nearby Civil Hospital. He had duly kept his Unit informed and had produced medical certificates from the Civil Surgeon of the Hospital. Even then he was dismissed. I had to file three petitions to have his punsihment set aside and to get him his pensionary benefits.

    By Lt Col MG Kapoor Retd

    To be contd in Part - 2

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Contd from Part -1) Part - 2

    The question I put to myself is "Is setting example only applicable at the lower levels or lower ranks?"

    Or is it the commradiery that helped him as the members of the Court martial were all Lt Gen, perhaps comrade-in-arms to Rath.

    I am reminded of the case way back in 1985 of Major General DSC Rai whom I defended and when he could not be court-martialled he was dismissed from service under Army Act Section 18. The charge 'His wife exhibited her paintings in a five star hotel which the Unit commanders under General Rai purchased from Unit funds' and Unit Commanders giving gifts to General Rai on his being posted out, in the form of souvenirs of Rs. 250/- that was in excess of RS.25/- prescribed in the Defence Services Regulations - both acts considered 'prejudicail to good order and miltary dsicipline'!

    I ask mysel "Hasn't Rath been dealt with liniently".

    Or was it only for the General Public's consumption who are not aware that such punishments to Lt Genaral Rath mean nothing and have no repercussions?
    In my view 'Setting Example' must come from the top.

    With best regards,

    Lt Col MG Kapoor,
    Practising Law in Delhi High Court

    Concluded

    ReplyDelete