Imposes Rs1l fine on Army for ‘loss of honour’ caused to PK Rath by the court martial conviction
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on Friday quashed the court martial conviction of former 33 Corps Commander lt Gen P K Rath in the Sukna land scam and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the Army for “loss of honour” suffered by the officer who had to undergo “undue harassment.” The court martial in 2011 had awarded him punishment with loss of seniority of rank by 18 months, forfeiture of 15 years past service for the purpose of pension and severe reprimand.
The court martial found him guilty in the alleged scam for issuing a ‘no-objection certificate’ to a private builder for building an educational institution on a 70-acre plot adjacent to Sukna Cantonment in West Bengal. Rath and then Military Secretary lt Gen Avdesh Prakash had faced court martial in the case but Rath was the first to be punished. Setting aside the court martial sentence, the Tribunal bench headed by Justice Sunil Hali said, “The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. He is entitled to restoration of all benefits with 12 per cent interest.”
The bench said the petitioner suffered undue harassment and loss of reputation by the act of the respondents which if not compensated would be a travesty of justice. “Therefore, as a notional compensation for the harassment and loss of honour and name caused to the petitioner, a cost of Rs 1,00,000 is to be paid by respondents,” it said.
The Army said the Judge Advocate General’s department will go through the Tribunal judgement before taking the next step like appealing against the Tribunal order, officials later said. The land scam came into the open in mid-2008 when former Army Chief General V K Singh was the Eastern Army Commander and had initiated the court of inquiry into the matter.
In his petition, Rath alleged that General V K Singh had given “undue importance” to the case as he had a “serious grudge” against the then Military Secretary lt General Prakash whom he held responsible for obtaining a commitment from him on the issue of his date of birth which stood in the way of his extension of tenure as the Chief of the Army Staff.