NEW DELHI: If a common man gets jailed for violating the Arms Act, then why are Army personnel, adjudged to have committed the same offence by a Court of Inquiry for selling their non-service weapons, let off after just a reprimand and a fine of Rs 500?
A Supreme Court bench of Justices S S Nijjar and M Y Eqbal on Tuesday posed this and other searching questions during the hearing of a PIL filed five years ago which alleged that Army officers were selling their weapons illegally in Rajasthan.
Additional solicitor general Paras Kuhad said that initially, the Army thought selling of non-service weapons by Army personnel was a major illegality but on appreciation of evidence, it was not found to be so by a Court of Inquiry, as well as by the Army chief and the defence ministry.
"A reprimand is considered quite severe penalty in a disciplined force like Army. In some cases, the officers have been punished with forfeiture of several years of service which would seriously hamper their career prospects," Kuhad said and requested the court that once the Army has taken a view, it would not be prudent for the apex court to intervene.
The bench appeared unconvinced as it said, "This (the case) seems to indicate that the officers were running an industry." But Kuhad said the sale was not illegal but what was objectionable was that some officers acted like middlemen to persuade other officers to sell their non-standard pattern (NSP) weapons.
The bench said, "Why should they be permitted to continue in service? Only thing restraining us is the fact that it involved officers of the Army. Otherwise, consequences would have been different. In our opinion, the punishment awarded does not appear to be adequate."
It asked the Army headquarters to submit records of Court of Inquiry proceedings and the General Court Martial records and asked Kuhad to elaborate on his proposition that the courts must be very circumspect while interfering with the findings of CoI and GCM.
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of the PIL. Petitioner advocate Arvind Sharma had alleged that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, had said, "During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light." Additional advocate general Manish Singhvi informed the court that investigation in 13 cases were complete.
The Army too had detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were "punished" with "severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500", two were "reprimanded" and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with "severe displeasure (non-recordable).
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and "a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy" in these cases.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
Why jail for common man and reprimand for Army men? SC asks
This article
Why jail for common man and reprimand for Army men? SC asks
can be opened in url
http://newsobtain.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-jail-for-common-man-and-reprimand.html
Why jail for common man and reprimand for Army men? SC asks
