In Army, discipline has a direct impact on its functional efficacy

Ruling that there is necessity of stringent punitive measures to maintain military order and integrity, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has upheld the demotion of a soldier held guilty for falsifying official records and tampering with documents.

The soldier, DK Singh, belonging to the Army Service Corps has tried by a summary court martial for tampering with the counterfoils of bank cheques issued to a trading firm and unauthorisedly signing railway warrants in lieu of a Lieutenant Colonel commanding the unit where he was posted.

The Trial, however, was set aside by the General Officer Commanding, Madhya Bharat Area on account of certain legal infirmities. Thereafter, based on legal advice, administrative action was initiated against him and a show cause notice was issued.

The soldier pleaded guilty to one charge and not guilty to the second. Based upon his reply, he was awarded the punishment of reduction of rank from Havildar to Naik. His representation before Army Headquarters against the punishment was rejected, following which he was discharged from service in 2018.

In his petition before the Tribunal, he contended that once the proceedings of the court martial were set aside, was relieved of all the consequences arising out of the trial and he ought not to be punished for the same offence through administrative action.

The army, on the other hand, contended before the Tribunal that since charges against the soldier had become time barred as the period of limitation had expired, therefore, in view of the same administrative action was initiated against him as he had committed an offence of moral turpitude of grave nature which cannot be dealt with leniently in Army where discipline has a direct impact on its functional efficacy.

The Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta and Lt Gen Anil Puri ruled that the soldier had committed a grave offence, which cannot be dealt with leniently in the Army where discipline has a direct impact on its functional efficacy and leaving him scot-free after committing such a serious offence, for which he himself pleaded guilty, would have adverse effect on the overall discipline of the organisation like the Army.

Refusing to interfere in the matter, the Bench also observed that despite the serious nature of the offence, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment up to 14 years, he had been leniently punished by reducing his rank only, keeping in view of his length of service so that he could get his due pension.