The Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has directed the government to promote a retired Major General to the rank of Lt General in notional promotion with all consequent benefits after finding that he had been illegally denied promotion in 1997 to benefit another officer. The AFT has also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Union of India for depriving Major General M M R Narang of his promotion on “non-existent, rather false grounds”.
Maj Gen Narang was approved for the next rank of Lt Gen in 1996, but was made to retire in January 1997 as Major General on the pretext that there was no vacancy available in the rank of Lt Gen. The officer, belonging to the Corps of Engineers, had then filed a petition in the High Court in 1997, later transferred to AFT, averring that there were three vacancies available for the Corps.
At the time one vacancy of Director General Border Roads (DGBR) was available and further there were other vacancies also available, including the post of Director General National Cadet Corps (DGNCC), but they were not given to him. He had stated in his petition that the appointment of DGNCC was kept vacant for five months and ultimately given to another officer of a junior batch, Lt Gen B S Malik, who was granted extension in service for three months and then promoted and appointed as DGNCC.
He also stated that another officer, Maj Gen R J Mordecai, who was declared fit to hold a “staff” appointment was not appointed as DGNCC but was appointed as DGBR, a ‘Corps’ appointment, to keep DGNCC vacant. He had also argued that the prevalent system of ‘chain appointments’ was not carried out due to political considerations. These developments took place at a time when Mulayam Singh Yadav was the Defence Minister and General Shankar Roychowdhury was the Chief of Army Staff.
Agreeing with the petition, the AFT Bench comprising Justice M S Chauhan and Lt Gen Munish Sibal (retd), in a strongly worded order, has held that the government has not only been unfair to the petitioner, but also with the Court by concealing facts which amounted to playing ‘fraud on the court as well as opposite party’.