National   

Government asked to consider afresh Army DGST appointment

BANGALORE: The Union government has been put on notice by a recent decision of the Delhi High Court directing that the Commandant of the Army Service Corps (ASC) Centre and College here, Lt. Gen. S.K. Dahiya, be considered afresh for the post of Director-General Supply and Transport (DGST).

The coveted post is the highest any ASC officer can aspire for during service, and has been lying vacant since July 2006. The High Court which has given the government time till September 20 to take a decision, was delivering its judgment on a writ petition filed last October by Lt. Gen. Dahiya after he was denied the post, though he was the senior-most and next in line.

Lt. Gen. Dahiya, who is still the senior-most ASC officer and only Lieutenant-General in the ASC, had been recommended twice in January and March by the Army Headquarters for the post of DGST. But the Ministry of Defence turned down the recommendation citing the awarding of a “severe displeasure [recordable]” punishment to him by an Army Court of Inquiry, saying that appointing the officer “at the head of the organisation so soon after such a punishment would send wrong signals to the public, especially when the matter was already appearing in the media.”

But, embarrassingly for the government, the Delhi High Court on August 24 quashed the Court of Inquiry proceedings and its consequential order awarding a “severe displeasure [recordable]” by way of punishment. The Court held the view that the Court of Inquiry’s proceedings violated the full opportunity provisions of Rule 180 of the Army Rules not only in regard to Lt. Gen. Dahiya’s “right to adduce evidence in his defence, but also in regard to his right to demand copies of documents forming part of the inquiry.”

With the award of severe displeasure (recordable) against Lt. Gen. Dahiya based entirely on the findings recorded by the army’s Court of Inquiry proceedings which have now been found to be vitiated by reason of the violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, the High Court has ruled that the order of punishment would also have to go. With both the proceedings and the punishment found violative, the Court held that the government can no longer cite the findings of the Court of Inquiry or the punishment awarded to Lt. Gen. Dahiya as reason to deny appointing him as the DGST.

According to the High Court, the quashing of the court of inquiry’s proceedings and the order of punishment called for a fresh look at the proposal mooted by the Army Headquarters for the appointment of Lt. Gen. Dahiya as DGST.

The High Court, however, declined to entertain the General’s plea to issue a mandamus to the government to straightaway appoint him as DGST. The government has also been asked not to hold Lt. Gen. Dahiya’s reduced residual service against him. The General retires on March 31, 2008.

The Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered in October 2005 by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Northern Command after certain irregularities were alleged to have taken place in the operation of the frozen meat contract at Chandigarh from June 2003 to January 2005. Lt. Gen. Dahiya was then at the Northern Command’s Headquarters at Udhampur.

The government could go in for a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s decision. It has also not been compelled to appoint a DGST, but this is first time that the ASC has been without a head, who is key for policy matters concerning the Corps.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Ramar Sethu: Modi attacks Congress
Mirwaiz unlikely to attend OIC meet
Dogs, vultures feeding on bodies of tribesmen lynched by villagers
Manmohan should apologise: Togadia
AIFB reminds Centre of Left’s concerns
Three film-makers petition President
Tension in village over book on Rama
Government asked to consider afresh Army DGST appointment
Wildlife conservation week
Majuli may lose heritage tag
Abducted lawyer stabbed to death
Menon to visit China today
Maudany’s acquittal: “CBI should file appeal”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu