Had he been present, witnesses at the Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the Sukna land scandal may have been more ?sober? about accusing former military secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the Armed Forces Tribunal said on Monday.
The Tribunal, which on Monday reserved the case for final orders, said the presence of LT Gen Prakash surely would have had a ?sobering? effect on the 14 witnesses, all defence personnel, who named him in the scandal.
Replying to tribunal?s remark, additional solicitor general (ASG) Indira Jaising, appearing for the Union of India, said Lt Gen Prakash?s presence would have rather produced a ?chilling effect? on the witnesses than a sobering one.
The ASG wrapped up her day-long argument before a Bench of Justice AK Mathur and Lt Gen SS Dhillon with a request that the court should, in its decision, strike a balance between ?the need to protect the person being tried and the need to maintain probity among persons holding high positions?.
The ASG began by clarifying that the CoI was a general ?fact-finding? exercise into suspicions raised against the issuance of an NOC for the transfer of 71 acres adjacent to the Sukna military station to a private person, and not a disciplinary process against Lt Gen Prakash in specific.
The ASG?s submission was in the light of a contention raised by Lt Gen Prakash that the CoI was illegal as it was held in his absence in violation of the Army Rule 180, which mandates the presence of the person whose ?military reputation? is at stake.
The CoI started suspecting Lt Gen Prakash only after his name ?surfaced again and again? in the statements of the witnesses, the ASG said. ?So then why did you not stop the inquiry and issue notice to him (Lt Gen Prakash). Why did you have to wait so long?? the Bench asked Jaising.
Though the inquiry started on October 11, 2009, Lt Gen Prakash was only called on November 17.
Jaising replied that the inquiry panel was waiting to be ?reasonably satisfied? of Lt Gen Prakash?s involvement in the scandal because they ?did not want to jump the gun against a high-ranking officer?.
But the court signalled its dissatisfaction with the CoI and said there was no excuse for not having ?made up your mind (to call Lt Gen Prakash or not) at an appropriate time?.
The ASG said there was ?substantial compliance? of the principles of natural justice and Army Rule 180 in favour of Lt Gen Prakash because he was invited to recall and cross-examine ?any witnesses? listed, including Lt Gen P K Rath, who was the first to name Lt Gen Prakash. The ASG said the conduct of Rath and other witnesses showed they were subjected to some sort of ?victimisation?.
She was trying to explain the phenomenon as to why Rath and the other 13 witnesses kept mum on Lt Gen Prakash?s alleged involvement, but later came back and testified against him.
