as ASC Haw if his date of birth shown as 10-5-1951? No. It seems he
was shown his date of birth 10-5-1950 to facilitate his enrolment in
the ASC as Hav if the enrolment story is correct. IThis practice was
not in practice when I joined IMA as Gentlemen Cadet. If this story is
correct that may be a routine practice in all cases where the GCs are
underaged for enrolment. If someone bother to check, the fact will
emerge. If that be sok the issue is serious.
On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir
>
> You are correct that nobody seems to have considered AA sec 44.
>
> A detailed analysis of how these DoBs entered various files has been
> attempted by one Col P.K.Das (Retd) in a letter published in Hindustan Times
> [http://www.publishaletter.com/readletter.jsp?plid=28489]
>
> Such incidents betray an appalling lack of intra-service communication /
> record keeping and convey that politics and manipulation continue to ride
> rampant in our fighting forces - perpetuated by politicians and babus..
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No body has considered the implications of Army Act Section 44 (False
>> answers on enrolment)
>>
>> While Gen VK Singh's DOB may have been mistakenly written as 10 May
>> 1950 in the UPSC form, the same cannot be said for the enrolment form
>> he filled when he joined IMA. As you may be knowing, gentleman cadets
>> are enrolled as Havildars in ASC when they join IMA, in order to bring
>> them under the Army Act. This form is signed by the GC himslef. A
>> false answer in this form is punishable with upto five years
>> imprisonment.
>>
>> It would be best if 10 May 1950 is accepted as the correct DOB, to
>> avoid the embarrasment of possible prosecution under AA Section 44.
>>
>> Maj Gen VK Sngh (Retd)
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 18:55, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think that CoAS has always maintained his DoB as 10 May 1951. It is
>> only
>> > in the UPSC where his DoB is shown as 1950. Some of the correspondence
>> > is
>> at
>> > this link.
>> >
>> http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/army-chiefs-age-row-pits-general-vs-general/
>> >
>> > "So even as the force and the Defence Ministry grapples with another
>> > controversy regarding its top officer, it is important to note that
>> > these
>> > flurry of letters were running parallel to investigations in the Sukhna
>> land
>> > scam, where then Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General VK Singh had
>> > ordered a Court of Inquiry that was to later reach the top, to the
>> Military
>> > Secretary Lieutenant General Avadesh Prakash and the Chief, General
>> Deepak
>> > Kapoor."
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If the COAS goes to Court, he will have it. One can't be selective in
>> >> this case. He can't claim to reckon his DoB as 1950 when 1950 suited
>> >> him and 1951 when 1951 suited him. If someone dig into the case he
>> >> has to answer for the benefits he availed by counting his DoB as 1950
>> >> and 1951.If he is wise, I think he is will not press the case as he
>> >> hardly get any gain other than one more year's service. He should
>> >> honourably vacate the post in 2012 to enable his junior to become
>> >> CoAS. in 2012
>> >>
>> >> On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262
>> >> >
>> >> > The government's decision on the date of birth of the man who heads
>> the
>> >> > Indian Army may not provide the closure many have been hoping for.
>> >> > Experts
>> >> > say a complicated and lengthy legal battle could follow in the next
>> few
>> >> > months.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yesterday, the Defence Minister said that the government had accepted
>> >> > 1950
>> >> > as the year in which General VK Singh was born. The Army Chief has
>> been
>> >> > arguing that he was born a year later. The problem is that Army
>> records
>> >> > reflect both.
>> >> >
>> >> > The biggest implication is the year in which the Army Chief will
>> retire
>> >> > -
>> >> > 2012, according to the government's decision. If it had accepted Mr
>> >> > Singh's
>> >> > date of birth, his tenure would have extended to 2013.
>> >> >
>> >> > Several legal experts, including three retired Chief Justices, have
>> said
>> >> > that Mr Singh has a strong case against the government, should he
>> decide
>> >> > to
>> >> > go to court.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Defence Ministry has asked the official record-keeper of the Army
>> -
>> >> > the
>> >> > Adjutant General's branch - to change Mr Singh's date of birth in its
>> >> > records from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951. But defence regulations
>> state
>> >> > that service records cannot be altered - a fact that the Adjutant
>> >> > General is
>> >> > likely to stress today to the government.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the first time that the age of a military chief has become a
>> >> > matter
>> >> > of national concern and debate. Former Army chiefs state that the
>> >> > government's decision could inadvertently turn General Singh into a
>> >> > lame-duck Army Chief.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Read more at:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262&cp
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment