New Delhi, Jan. 27: Overruling Chief of Army Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor, defence minister A.K. Antony has “advised” disciplinary action — that could include a court-martial — against military secretary Lt. Gen. Avdesh Prakash in the Sukna land scam case, defence ministry sources confirmed on Wednesday.
Gen. Kapoor, who had earlier contemplated only “administrative action” against Lt. Gen. Prakash, will now find it next to impossible to ignore the defence minister’s “advice”, which is tantamount to an order.
Lt. Gen. Prakash, who as military secretary is one of the seven principal staff officers to the Army Chief, is due to retire on January 31, but under the rules disciplinary action can still be taken against him upto three years after retirement.
It was also confirmed that incumbent 9 Corps chief Lt. Gen. G.M. Nair will become the Army’s new military secretary from February 1.
Till Wednesday evening, however, Army sources had claimed that no steps for disciplinary action against Lt. Gen. Prakash had been initiated. The Army had earlier decided to take disciplinary action against another top officer, former 33 Corps chief Lt. Gen. P.K. Rath, in connection with the Sukna case.
Lt. Gen. Prakash and Lt. Gen. Rath were among four senior officers investigated in the case. While Gen. Kapoor was earlier contemplating administrative action (that ranges from a warning to a dismissal) against Lt. Gen. Prakash, there was a perception in some quarters that the Army Chief was “soft” on Lt. Gen. Prakash since administrative action was seen as a much milder course of action. Administrative action against Lt. Gen. Prakash would have meant he would have escaped a court-martial.
The two other officers being probed in the case are 11 Corps chief Lt. Gen. Ramesh Halgali and another senior Army officer, Maj. Gen. P. Sen, against whom administrative action is being contemplated by the Army.
Military secretary Lt. Gen. Avdesh Prakash was probed for allegedly concealing information and taking undue interest in furthering the agenda of a civilian businessman, Dilip Agarwal. Lt. Gen. Prakash was also probed for allegedly using his position of authority to pressure the staff of the 33 Corps headquarters and influencing Lt. Gen. P.K. Rath. Also, Lt. Gen. Prakash is alleged to have actually accompanied Dilip Agarwal to Rajasthan and visited a reputed educational institution there. Mr Agarwal had wanted to construct an educational institution on the land adjoining Army land at Sukna in northern West Bengal.
Former 33 Corps chief Lt. Gen. P.K. Rath was probed for allegedly suppressing information about the role played by Lt. Gen. Prakash, who is alleged to have introduced Dilip Agarwal to him. Lt. Gen. Rath was also probed for actions that are alleged to have violated basic security and staff procedure norms and raised suspicions about his possible motivation.
A court of inquiry was ordered last year into the grant of a no-objection certificate by the Army for construction on non-Army land adjoining Army land at Sukna in West Bengal in February 2009. The court of inquiry report was later submitted to Army Headquarters. It was alleged that the NoC was granted by Lt. Gen. Rath at the behest of Lt. Gen. Prakash.
About a fortnight ago, the Army Chief had decided that disciplinary action would be initiated against Lt. Gen. Rath, while showcause notices would be issued to Lt. Gen. Prakash, Lt. Gen. Halgali and Maj. Gen. P. Sen asking why administrative action should not be taken against them. Lt. Gen. Prakash is also understood to have replied to the Army’s showcause notice.
Army sources had said earlier that disciplinary action was planned only against Lt. Gen. Rath (from among the four senior officers) since he was heading 33 Corps when the NoC was given and that his alleged involvement, according to the Army top brass, seemed greater than that of the other officers, including Lt. Gen. Prakash. But this argument does not seem to have cut any ice with the ministry.
In fact, as reported earlier, the ministry was keen to know from the Army why disciplinary action was being recommended only in certain cases while administrative action was recommended in other cases relating to the Sukna land scam. Incidentally, the officers being investigated had earlier denied the allegations against them.
Age Correspondent
