A Lt Colonel of Artillery is facing a General Court Martial (GCM) on allegations of misusing funds derived from CSD canteen and falsely claiming House Rent Allowance (HRA). The officer, who was earlier posted as Officer Commanding of 625 SATA Battery, is facing the court martial in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
Colonel VK Deshpande is the presiding officer of the court martial while Lt Col Williamjeet Singh Dhillon is the Judge Advocate. The Lt Colonel is being defended by a former head of the Judge Advocate Department, Maj Gen T Parshad. It is learnt that the officer is facing several charges under Section 52 (f), Section 57 (c) of the Army Act and Section 465 of the IPC. While Section 52 (f) of the Army Act deals with doing anything with intent to defraud, or to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, Section 57 (c) deals with a person knowingly and with intent to injure any person, or knowingly and with intent to defraud, suppresses, defaces, alters or makes away with any document which it is his duty to preserve or produce. Section 465 of the IPC pertains to forgery.
The financial misdemeanour pertains to alleged misuse of CSD Quantitative Discount (QD) fund. The action against the officer follows two anonymous complaints made against him in July 2021. There are also allegations of misuse of HRA. The officer had earlier moved the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) contending that no action could be taken against him on the bases of a pseudonymous complaint as the same was against the directions of the Dept of Personnel and Training (DoPT) as well as Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The officer was commissioned in the Regiment of Artillery in June 2004. He assumed command of 625 SATA battery located at Nimu in Ladakh, from where he moved the unit to Nasirabad in Rajasthan after a year and subsequently to Jaisalmer.
In July 2021, an anonymous complaint was submitted against him and a one-man investigation was conducted for the same. The anonymous complaint was found baseless and no further action was recommended as per existing Army orders on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. However, another anonymous/pseudonymous complaint dated July 28, 2021, was submitted against the officer, following which another one-man inquiry was conducted by the Commander 12 Artillery brigade.
The first Court of Inquiry against the officer was held in August/September 2021. The officer informed the AFT that he was not provided with the copies of the inquiry reports, nor the documents relevant for his records and yet disciplinary action was directed against him and he was attached with the HQ 140 Armoured Brigade for disciplinary action.
Click here to join The Indian Express on WhatsApp and get latest news and updates
