CAG flags delays, inconsistencies in conduct of Court of Inquiry proceedings in Army

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has flagged “persistent delays” in the conduct and finalisation of proceedings by Court of Inquiry (CoI) in Army, along with highlighting procedural inconsistencies.

A COI is a three-member fact finding body comprising of defence officers. Its mandate is to investigate an incident, lapse or a complaint and fix responsibility. It is the initial stage for any disciplinary or administrative proceedings and further course of action depends upon the findings of the CoI and directions thereof by the competent authority.

There were persistent delays in finalisation of the CoI proceedings in Indian Army. Out of 95 cases involving financial loss in the three Army Commands — Central Command, Eastern Command and Western Command, stipulated timeline for assembly and completion of COI was met only in 46 and 25 cases respectively, the CAG observed in its report tabled in Parliament on December 17.

In 11 cases, time taken in completion of CoI was more than two years and even up to 11 years, the CAG said.

In 10 CoIs related to fire incidents where the Command HQs were authorised to convene a CoI, the convening order was issued by an authority lower than the Command HQs. The terms of reference (ToR) which lay down the scope of investigation for a COI did not have specific mention of fixation of responsibility and apportioning of blame / loss in 29 cases, the audit body said.

Further, in 28 out of these 29 cases, there was no mention of the relevant Army Rules, Orders, Instructions, etc., and in 13 of these 29 cases, no mention was made of assessing the extent of loss and damage to life/ property.

It further said that in 95 cases, CoI assessed financial loss of Rs 50.76 crore. The financial losses of R 7.12 crore were regularised in respect of 43 cases (April 2022). However, in 52 cases involving financial loss of Rs 43.64 crore, the information relating to regularisation of loss by Competent Financial Authority was not available.

In 57 out of 95 cases, the required documents relating to intimation of details of loss to accounting authorities, that is, Controllers of Defence Accounts (CsDA), were not available in the documents furnished. As such, audit was unable to ascertain whether the loss was reported to the CsDA either initially or finally after investigation, it added.

In 20 out of 38 remaining cases, where the Commands or Units furnished details of financial losses to the concerned CsDA after completion of CoI, the time taken in reporting of losses to CsDA ranged between three months and more than two years.