Military CoI not for civilian officers: CAT

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 26

Providing relief to a Military Engineer Service (MES) officer whose name figured in an Army staff court of inquiry convened to investigate alleged lapse in procurement, the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that the jurisdiction of the military court of inquiry does not cover civilian employees posted in defence establishments.

Quashing an order that denied vigilance clearance to Joint Director General (Personnel and Training), Western Command, Dev Raj, an Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE) cadre officer, the CAT observed that civilian officers, though liable to participate in a court of inquiry against military personnel, are governed by the Central Civil Services Rules and not by the Army rules under which a court of inquiry is convened.

The convening order of the staff court of inquiry mentioned that it was to ascertain irregularities committed by military personnel and Dev Raj was summoned before it as a witness. The MES has a mix of Army and IDSE officers.

The Ministry of Defence had relied upon a letter issued by the Engineer-in-Chief stating that disciplinary action against civilian officers should be taken after receipt of concurred court of inquiry and show-cause notice be issued to all officers blamed for the lapses.

The Bench held that to assert emphatically that an indictment by the court of inquiry of a civilian officer in the absence of attendant requirements to have full legal force seems unfair and incorrect. The Bench said that the respondents offered no explanation as to why the court of inquiry, being beyond jurisdiction and not instituted to inquire against the conduct of the applicant, amplified its scope to include the applicant and give findings on his conduct.

The applicant’s case was that when he was promoted to the rank of Chief Engineer after the court of inquiry, there was no vigilance issue. However, when he was to be posted to an important executive post as the Chief Engineer of a Zone, he was denied vigilance clearance, which was contrary to rules.