Devils Article: Conduct un-becoming & Violation of Good Order and Military Discipline

Devils Article: Conduct un-becoming & Violation
of Good Order and Military Discipline
Chandra CP Nath
June 20, 2011

Lt General P K Rath was recently punished severely for giving securityclearance for a school adjacent to the military area. Did the prosecution prove a culpable mental state where he committed the crime knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently or was it just an error of judgement in an  administrative function? Are these questions too sophisticated to be asked from the prosecution in a General Court Martial where the judges themselves are ntrained in law and not capable of asking such questions.
”The lack of legal qualification or experience in the officers making the decisions either at the court martial or review stages made it impossible for them to act in an independent or impartial manner.” writes European Human Rights Court (in Findlay v. United Kingom in 1997) while declaring that the Army Courts Martial of UK are violative of Human Rights.

Further, European Human Rights Court expressed the unanimous opinion in this particular case about the UK Court Martial, that there had been a violation of Article 6 para 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1). All the officers appointed to the court were directly subordinate to the convening officer who also performed the role of prosecuting authority.
Remember Indian Court Martial which are modeled on the lines of UK Court
Martial are no different in this respect and it is just a matter of time Indian
Court Martial will also be declared violative of Human Rights of the accused.
Lt General Rath, just because he was in uniform could be punished for an
error of judgement in a purely administrative function. Is this the way we treat
India’s distinguished soldiers who have served with distinction for more than
30+ years? Why would any one like to join the military if young men realize
that the society is thankless for the service these men in uniform provided in a
life time career?
I am not saying that the GCM should be lenient to people who have really
committed despicable crimes against society. Is it a despicable crime against
society to want a school adjacent to the military area? The fact that the school
is not part of Mayo College is not reason enough to declare that the security
clearance is defective. Have the prosecution proved the immense security danger
to Indian military establishment from this particular school as against Mayo
College? Did the judges of the GCM ask the prosecution this question? Is this
a military offence to provide security clearance to this particular school?
In a scathing critical remark, US Supreme court stated in O’Callahan v.
Parker:
[T]he catch all Article 134, conduct prejudicial to good order and
military discipline, punishes as a crime ’all disorders and neglects
to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.’
Does this satisfy the standards of vagueness as developed by the civil
courts? A civilian trial is held in an atmosphere conducive to the
protection of individual rights, while a military trial is marked by
the age-old manifest destiny of retributive justice.
The corresponding Section 63 of the Army Act or its equivalent has been the
weapon of choice to punish men in uniform who just could not be charged with
any other offence. This catch all offence has been a subject of research in the
military law all over the western world. ”Conduct unbecoming”, the favourite
title for this offence in the legal research, is more than a cosmetic feature of
military justice. This crime has put military law to work in many other armies
in the world and that too for centuries.
The practice of falling back to offence under the ”Devils Article”: Army Act Section 63 when you can not charge the accused with any other military offence under the Army Act is a very old one with lot of history behind it not just here in India but all other Armies where the laws were derived from English laws which was originally derived directly from Roman Laws.
The setting of boundaries for acceptable officer conduct, whether in grave cases that might lead to a capital court-martial or in relative minor incidents that could result in an Article 133 violation, reveals the military’s efforts to set itself apart from, and even above, the civil society and Constitution it defends” writes Elizabeth L Hillman in Law and Inequality, A journal of Theory and Practice.
As recently stated by eminent jurists:
None of the travesties of justice perpetrated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is really very surprising, for military law has always been and continues to be primarily an instrument of discipline, not justice.- Glasser, Justice and Captain Levy, Columbia Forum. The reason the Military justice system is under constant attack from every quarter in the western society and there is constant attempt to improve it or at least doubt its ability to provide justice is a very positive thing. The reason why it is not under attack in India is tragic because it smacks of certain insensitivity to the fairness of the system to one who has volunteered for service with the military and his willingness, if and when necessary to make the supreme sacrifice in call of duty for the nation. Even the courts in India including the Supreme court have maintained a hands off stand much to the detriment of the consumer of the military justice system, i.e. the man in uniform.
Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that trial by military courts may not be permitted in time of peace, when the King’s Courts are open for all Persons to receive Justice according to the Laws of the Land.” Hale,CJ commented that military justice is
not a true system of law at all, but is ”something indulged, rather than allowed as a law” because of the need for order and discipline in the army. Sir William Blackstone agreed.
Is retributive justice the goal of a civil society that values liberties and human rights? Should a liberal democratic society like India go back to ancient societies where such values were denied to its soldiers? Should those men in uniform who defend freedoms of such a liberal democratic society be themselves deprived the fruits of such values? These are questions that should engage any intelligent citizen in general and jurists in particular.
”This crime (conduct un-becoming) has put military law to work assuaging fears that an increasingly heterogeneous military is in danger of un-becoming itself. Its history reveals the unstable hierarchies that make the military intelligible not just to outsiders, but to officers - and gentlemen- themselves” concludes Hillman in her article titled: ”Gentlemen Under Fire: The US Military and ”Conduct Unbecoming” in Law and Inequality, A journal of Theory and Practice.

Legislators and jurists can make bad laws. Society changes and the laws lag behind. This is nothing new. So, worthwhile jurists must be concerned not just with what the law is, but, most importantly, with what it ought to become. The best way to conclude this article is by quoting Charles M Schiesser and Daniel H. Benson in their milestone article titled ”Modern Military Justice”: In the long run, the patient’s health will be more improved by proper  diagnosis and treatment, than by either a refusal to admit the illness,  or a desire for the patient’s demise.

Here is the pdf of the above:






Devils Article: Conduct Unbecoming -

Put Media on Trial Before we Punish the General

Chandra CP Nath ∗
June 21, 2011

Lt General of the Indian Army will soon be facing a Court Martial in India. Crime
he (LT Gen Avadesh Prakash) committed: he tried to influence another official of the Indian Army! The question for debate is: Is it a crime to influence the decisions of another government official? And who is baying for the head of the
accused General? The media. The media in its  enthusiasm to curb corruption is swinging into action to urge the RM and the Chief to take criminal action against a General,(in his capacity as PSO of the Chief of Army Staff) who tried to influence the actions of another General in his capacity as a Corps commander.
More:

Put Media on Trial

Indian Military Justice System: Time to Put the Indian Court Martial on Trial

”Theres a compelling reason why the defense establishment which
includes politicians, bureaucrats and military bureaucrats needs to
stop the tide of corruption”, asserts Tehelka in its issue on corruption
in Defense Forces in India. It goes further: ”The COI found them
guilty and it recommended that (Gen) Prakash be sacked. However,
(Gen) Kapoor stepped in and recommended that only administrative
action should be taken against him. This caused so much commotion
that Antony had to write a letter to the army chief asking for a court
martial.”1
Where does this leave Military Justice system is a question I first raise in
this article. The thesis of this paper is that the current Military Justice System,
as it exists in India, is weighed against ”the accused” and is totally violative of
the human rights accorded to him for a fair trial under the Human Rights Law
accepted the world over.
I am not arguing that the real law breakers should be left to escape. Just
the contrary. Did Gen Kapoor attempt to give his Principal Staff Officer an
escape route by not bringing charges against him for an offence that demanded
disciplinary action? If yes, it may be violative of the military criminal justice
(obstruction of justice: an act with the intent to influence, impede, or otherwise
obstruct the due administration of justice) if he has done the same for reasons
he can not justify. Was it an error of judgement? To come under pressure from
RM to order a court martial when his sound military professional judgement
concluded otherwise, (and he as the commanding officer is the sole authority to
decide this) may be violative of a covenant duty as a commanding officer. If
he did, he himself may have committed ”an act prejudicial to good order and
military discipline”2
To come under pressure because of media onslaught and to ask the Chief
to order a court martial may itself be violation of law by the RM because he
is interfering with strictly judicial powers of the Chief and RM by this act
may have violated his oath of office (an act with the intent to influence the
due administration of justice). Please note, Caesar divorced his wife, Pompeia,
saying that ”my wife ought not even to be under suspicion.” This gave rise to
a proverb, sometimes expressed: ”Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Should the error of judgment (in case the Chief did not have adequate jus-
tification to recommend administrative action instead of court-martial) and/or
the act of succumbing to exterior pressure against his best judgment as the
sole authority to decide the course of action under the judicial powers bestowed
specifically in him as the Commanding Officer, and the action of the RM in
trying to influence a strictly judicial function of the Chief be ignored while the
institution is more than enthusiastic to punish Lt Gen P K Rath for an ”error
of judgment” or for that matter Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash for attempting to
influence the decision making of a field commander, all because they appeared
as ”the accused” ? Those who throw stones should not live in glass houses! Just
think about it! A serious critical analysis will expose more skeletons in
the cupboard than we would like to see.




More:

Time to Put Military Court Martial on Trial -

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81026213/Time-to-Put-Military-Court-Martial-on-Trial

Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Sir,
As expected, the jury is still out (it seems) � and confused and silent with no prospect of immediate agreement!

"There are few better measures of the concern a society has for its individual members and its own well being than the way it handles criminals ( crime and what is crime and what criminals are to be booked and what should be condoned!) Ramsey Clark

What Ramsey Clark said is true of organizations as it is true of societies. When we punish an activity, we are sending signal to all others to beware!

Never never give a NOC is the lesson to take home.
�( Curiously wikipedia defines an NOC like this: No Objection Certificate or popularly abbreviated as NOC is a type of legal certificate issued by any agency, organization, institute or in certain cases, an individual, that does not object to the covenants of the certificate. This certification is a requirement at most of the government-based departments predominantly from the Indian subcontinent!)

If the organization condones some activity, then we are sending the signal to others to follow that it is alright to engage in the activity. In case of Kargil:

1. It is alright to fudge the military records and obliterate the military history records of the nation.
2. It is alright to falsify the organization structure of command and even falsely create pseudo organizations under pseudo commanders.
3. It is alright to ignore the assessments of the subordinate commanders on ground and their recommendations.
4. It is alright to falsify the official After Action Reports to book a Commander under you.
5. It is alright to go against the threat assessment of a subordinate officer and go abjectly wrong in your own assessments.
6. It is alright to fudge all official records to obfuscate the truth.
7. It is alright to write off the career of a commander under you on false pretext and false charges and false biases and personal dislikes.
8. It is alright to send a Brigadier home (dismissed disgracefully from Army with out benefits) with out providing him an opportunity to defend himself in a GCM.
9. It is alright to engage in (and even be found out� officially� in a formal court)
   
1. Suppression of� truth of a military nature in face of the enemy thus obstructing the country from learning lessons from its failure
2. Obfuscation of truth from the military history of the country
   
3. Intent to harm an honorable officer (in the most hideous and mean way ) who fought for the country honorably
4. Failure to provide him a� chance to prove his innocence and thus
   
5. Obstruction of justice (by destruction of all records) so that the aggrieved and condemned officer will never get justice from the system

but it is NOT alright to give a NOC for a School any where near the cantonment/military area.

The fall out is, no NOC will ever be issued in the future but� all the extremely serious crimes and obstruction of justices and thus harming your own brother officer will be committed and repeatedly committed with impunity!

Long live the (mis)rule of Law.
There are few better measures of the concern a society has for its individual members and its own well being than the way it handles criminals ( crime and what is crime and what criminals are to be booked and what should be condoned!)
Ramsey Clark

No wonder wise men have stated over the years:

1. Many commit the same crimes with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown. [Lat., Multi committunt eadem diverso crimina fato; Ille crucem scleris pretium tulit, hic diadema.] Author:�Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenal)
2. We enact many laws that manufacture criminals, and then a few that punish them.Allen Tucker
3. When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.C. P. Snow
4. It is grievous to be caught. [Lat., Deprendi miserum est.] Author:�Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus)
5. Disgrace does not consist in the punishment, but in the crime. Vittorio Alfieri
6. The key is to commit crimes so confusing that police (in this case, the Military) feel too stupid to even write a crime report about them.
   Randy K. Milholland
7. Where crime is taught from early years, it becomes a part of nature. [Lat., Ars fit ubi a teneris crimen condiscitur annis.]
   Author:�Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso)

Some innocent child has to say: "Emperor has no clothes on after all!"
Nath

Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Re: Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Sir,

What punishment the Corp Commander XV Corps should get  for such serious  criminal offenses(See article below)  in which  there is injury to the public or a member of the public ? There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category of crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.
Or for that matter an innocent No Objection Certificate in which no one was hurt but a simple error of judgment as in the case of Lt General Rath!

The sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a social phenomenon" he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal norms.

The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. 
The Sumerians produced the earliest surviving written codes.The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of Lipit-Ishtar". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and scholars have reconstructed it by comparing several sources.

The Sumerian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes.

�" Kramer

"The common law divided participants in a felony into four basic categories: (1) first-degree principals, those who actually committed the crime in question; (2) second-degree principals, aiders and abettors present at the scene of the crime; (3) accessories before the fact, aiders and abettors who helped the principal before the basic criminal event took place; and (4) accessories after the fact, persons who helped the principal after the basic criminal event took place. In the course of the 20th century, however, American jurisdictions eliminated the distinction among the first three categories." Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007)

Unlike the offenses committed by Gen Rath, the ones committed by the XV corps commander had injured an officer who fought the war honorably!
Is it right that Gen Rath  (for an issue of innocuous NOC and that too for an school) is punished and not Gen Kishen Pal (for  all the crimes committed against the nation in falsifying the war records and getting a Brigadier summarily dismissed all to save his own ass which was on fire!) ?

Gentlemen of the Jury,
Just think for yourself, if you can!
Nath

General fudged Kargil reports, showed bias: Tribunal
11 years on, Armed Forces Tribunal grants relief to Brigadier serving under him
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service

Lt Gen Krishan Pal (left) and Brig Devinder Singh with Gen VP Malik, then Army chief, in Batalik sector during the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Chandigarh, May 26
Exactly 11 years after the Kargil limited war and controversies in its wake took the nation by storm, the Armed Forces Tribunal has held that a key Lieutenant General overseeing operations in that sector fudged reports of the conflict and showed bias towards a senior field commander.
The Tribunal has directed that relevant records and documents pertaining to operations by 70 Infantry Brigade in Batalik written by Lt Gen Krishan Pal, then General Officer Commanding (GOC) 15 Corps, be corrected and put in correct perspective. This includes portions of the After Action Report of 15 Corps, extracts of Op Vijay -- Account of War in Kargil, written by Army Headquarters. It also directed that in view of the GOC’s bias, all annual confidential reports (ACR) of Brigade Commander Brig Devinder Singh by him be expunged.
Operations to evict Pakistani intruders along the Line of Control in Kargil were launched in mid-May 1999 and wound up towards the end of July. Srinagar-based 15 Corps had the responsibility of clearing intrusions. The 70 Infantry Brigade, part of 3 Infantry Division under 15 Corps, had played a key role in the conflict, and according to Army Headquarters’ publications, faced the toughest challenge and earned the conflicts first and finest victories.
The Brigade Commander, however, was overlooked for promotion and was awarded a Vishisht Seva Medal, a non-gallantry award, even though he had been cited for the Mahavir Chakra. Lt Gen Krishan Pal retired as the Quarter Master General, one of the eight Principal Staff Officers at Army Headquarters, responsible for overseeing the Army’s entire logistics and supply operations.
Brig Devinder had contended that the After Action Report written by Lt Gen Krishan Pal had falsely shown four of his most successful battalions under a fictitious headquarters commanded by the then Deputy General Officer of 3 Infantry division, Brig Ashok Dugal, which reflected a lopsided picture of his command and battle performance to Army HQs. Though a brigade comprises three battalions, 11 units were placed under his command, out of which seven received battle and theatre honours for their performance.

Playing the role of an enemy commander in a war game held at 15 Corps in April 1999, he had forecasted the pattern of the Kargil intrusions, but his projections were summarily dismissed by the GOC. Later, during actual operations in mid-June 1999, his assessment of the enemy in his sector was 600 regulars, whereas the GOC projected it to be only 45 militants.

Directing that the balance of all the said ACRs be expunged, the Tribunal observed that because of the operational differences between them, the GOC was not favourably motivated towards the petitioner and he had made attempts to tailor reports, thus belittling his achievements. “It is obvious that the reports of Lt Gen Pal are not an objective assessment and more so, the government has already expunged more than 50 per cent of his remarks A person who writes an ACR in a biased manner cannot be allowed to sustain,” the Bench said.

Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Sir,
This is unfair punishment for an error of judgment that had no malicious intent!
The officer seems to be happy with the punishment!
He is happy that "intent to defraud" has been dropped!

If an error of judgment with out "intent to defrausd" or to harm another brother officer was to be punished so seriously ( he deserved more punishment for a more serious count as I explained in a different thread),
what should be the charge and punishment that should be meted out to perpetrators of crime against the Brigadier of Kargil mishap?

The charges that face Gen VP Malik who, I think,  was the Army chief then  are many many times more serious:

1. Suppression of  truth of a military nature in face of the enemy thus obstructing the country from learning lessons from its failure
2. Obfuscation of truth from the military history of the country
3. Intent to harm an honorable officer (in the most hideous and mean way ) who fought for the country honorably
4. Failure to provide him a  chance to prove his innocence and thus
5. Obstruction of justice

The quantum and seriousness of the offense must be at least 10 times more serious that what Gen Rath was indicted  and punished.

Just think about it.
Nath
--- In indianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com, C R Mohan Raj wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> a
> {
> font-family:Arial;
> font-size:14px;
> color:#af0e25;
> text-decoration:none;
> }
>
>
> �Lt Gen P K Rath, the senior-most serving officer to be convicted for corruption, was today given a sentence of severe reprimand and two-year loss of seniority by an Army Court Martial before which he broke down while the verdict was being pronounced.
>
> Rath will also have to undergo 15 years of loss of service for pensionary benefits for being guilty in the Sukna land scam.
>
> "To take rank and precedence as if appointment as substantiating Lt Gen bore dated May 24, 2010, forfeiture of 15 years service for pensionary benefits and severely reprimand," General Court Martial (GCM) Presiding Officer Lt Gen I J Singh said in his verdict.
>
> The two-year loss of seniority would mean that the officer who took the three-star rank in May 2008, would be now considered as being promoted as Lt Gen from May 2010 only. He has one more year of service left.
>
> Rath was found guilty by the court yesterday on three counts but four other charges including 'intent to defraud' were dropped.
>
> Rath broke down in the court while the judgement was being pronounced.
>
> Expressing gratitude to the GCM for dropping the defraud charges, he said, "This has removed the stigma which has been haunting me ever since the chargesheet was filed in the case."
>
> The order is subject to confirmation by the Defence Ministry.
>
> Rath, former Deputy Chief of Army Staff-designate, was found guilty of issuing a 'No-Objection Certificate' in the capacity of 33 Corps Commander to a private realtor for constructing educational institutions on a piece of land adjacent to the Sukna military station in West Bengal.
>
> The other two charges for which he was found guilty are signing of MoU with Geetanjali Trust for construction of the educational institute and for not informing his superiors in the Eastern Command about the proposed agreement.
>
> The four charges of 'intent to defraud' against the officer were dropped by the GCM.
>
> In his order Lt Gen I J Singh said, "After carefully considering the case and the statements of the witnesses, it has been found that there is no evidence that the accused could have gained anything or cause injury to anyone."
>
> "He has never told any officer to keep the matter as secret. Efforts were made to safeguard the interests of the army by ensuring that security is not compromised, and reservations in the proposed educational institution for the students and family of the army men," Singh said, adding there was "no deceit or secrecy in the signing of the MoU."Hide all
>
> Holding Rath guilty for not informing the superior authorities about the change in decision, Singh said, "But it was his duty to inform and seek approval of the headquarters Eastern Command. His action is prejudicial to good order and military discipline."
>
> The sentence of 15 years loss of service for pensionary benefits to Rath would mean a substantial decrease of 35-40 per cent in pension.
>
> "Though the pension would be for the rank of Lt Gen only but it will be calculated for 25 years of service and not 40 years," Rath's counsel Major S S Pandey said here.
>
> Rath had been designated as Deputy Chief of Army Staff but when the scandal came to light in 2008, his appointment was cancelled and since then he has been attached to different army formations for disciplinary proceedings.
>
> An Army Court of Inquiry had found Rath guilty of wrongdoing along with Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the then Military Secretary to the Army Chief, Lt Gen Ramesh Halgali, the then 11 Corps Commander and Maj Gen P K Sen.
>
> Subsequently, the Court Martial was ordered against Rath and Prakash while administrative action was directed against the two other officers.
>
> Prakash, the senior most of the four, is also facing disciplinary action in the case and his Summary of Evidence (SoE) has been completed in the Eastern Command headquarters in Kolkata.
>
> Halgali is presently serving as the Director General (Military Training) in the Army headquarters in New Delhi.
>
>
> Filed On: Jan 22, 2011 18:38 IST ,� Edited On: Jan 22, 2011 20:27 IST
> http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?709339

Lt Gen Rath Convicted of Corruption in Sukna Scam

Re: Lt Gen Rath Convicted of Corruption in Sukna Scam

Sir,

The question is NOT: How can the Military Secretary
 threaten or apply pressure on a Corps commander of equal rank.

So what, even if he can!

Even if he can, is it justified to come under pressure in carrying out my duties as a commissioned officer  commissioned specifically by the President of India to preserve, protect  and defend the Constitution of India and the territorial integrity of the nation (in contrast to the IAS officer who is appointed by the Ministry and does not get a Parchment personally signed in ink by the President and given under his seal of authority!)

___________________________________________________________________________
A commissioned officer is a military officer who holds a commission, a formal government document which vests power in the individual to whom it is issued. Typically, commissions are issued by the head of state; in the British Armed Forces, for example, the Queen or her agents give out commissions, while in the United States, the President hands out commissions, through the United States Congress.  In India , it is specifically signed by the President of India!
See the wording:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Lord High Admiral.
To our Trusty and Well Beloved ....... ....... Greeting:
We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage, and good Conduct, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in Our Royal Naval Reserve from the .... day of ........ ...... You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote you to, of which a notification will be made in the London Gazette, and you are in such manner on such occasions as may be prescribed by Us to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline.
And We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their superior Officer and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War, in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
Given at Our Court, at Saint James's the .... day of ........ .... in the ..... Year of Our Reign
By Her Majesty's Command

____________________

The President of the United States of America
To all who shall see these presents, greeting:
Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of .................., I do appoint ["him" or "her"] a ["Second Lieutenant" or "Ensign"] in the [name of service] to rank as such from the .... day of ........ ...... This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.
Done at the City of Washington, this .... day of ........ in the year of our Lord ................ and of the Independence of the United States of America the ..........
By the President:
_____________________
GO back and read your own Parchment! I don't have mine here.

______________________________________________________________________________________

It is a covenant trust placed on you and to fail that  trust for "coming under pressure threatening own career advancement or lure of future promotions" is  nothing short of squandering away a personal trust reposed on me personally by the President of the Nation.
Since the lives of men placed under me are dependent on my judgment & independent decisions I take using  my judgment as the sole guide, can I be influenced by coercions and inducements which some one else can put on me?Can I be coerced by my superior to violate my sacred duty in order to please his superior ?
This is where the honor of our profession comes, not in stupid OROP or is it  transgressed  when some one lower in seniority  than me  gets a higher pension!
Now you say: It is quite apparent that the trial itself is set up to please the present chief and Gen Rath is compounding his owes by taking this stupid line of defence.
If the organization is ready to punish a Lt Gen to please a General, isn't it tragic? 

Principles of justice are served when the punishment is for an offense and not when it is used to please a superior!
(or when it is used as an instrument of threat to others.)

Will the wheels of justice punish a "Commissioned officer" for using his judgment ?
That seems to be where the wheels of Justice of the organization has gone wrong.

Considering his defense being stupid and idiotic, he deserves to get the punishment awarded to him and perhaps more.

I repeat:
Lt Gen Rath ( and many others whose cases did not come to light and did not get indicted  for failure to discharge their duties with out  fear or favor !) failed that trust placed on him by the President personally  when he was commissioned with a formal parchment signed personally by the President   and he deserves to suffer the ignominy of the GCM and its punishment!
(and not for the indictments he is charged with and they are trivial!)
Again: There are ethical issues of the profession involved here. To have a vigilance department  with in Army is a very bad idea ( as bad as having SS in the German Army). Will having a Vigilence Department have helped uncover the transgression of  duty and ethical conduct in this particular case? Vigilence Department will be like a MP unit in the Fmn Hq.
What we need is Professional ethical education and ethical conduct in discharge of our duties. What we need is a "Bhagawat Geeta" of ethical conduct of the Profession sitting on our bed side table which every one can go to when dilemmas of ethical conduct troubles our mind. Such a thing would have helped to sort out the cobwebs in the mind of Gen Rath ( and many others!) when faced with situations like the one he faced with.

 And this is not unique. We face this every day in our conduct in our service. The transgression of the honor and the ethical conduct is visible  in every unethical move we make to advance our career or do favor to one who you like and punish one  who you do not like!
Nath


--- In indianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com, Achal Sridharan wrote:
>
> Colonel Nath has said it all. Thanks Nath Sir
>
> Sri
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:51 AM, jas.golden diaz.jas@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I fully agree with CPC's comments. Firstly Gen Rath did not apply his mind
> > to the likely implications of his defence statement and I am surprised that
> > his counsel did not guide him properly. How can the Military Secretary
> > threaten or apply pressure on a Corps commander of equal rank. I am sure
> > corps commander's postings and promotions are NOT decided by MS at his whims
> > without involving the COAS and VCOAS.
> >
> > It is quite apparent that the trial itself is set up to please the present
> > chief and Gen Rath is compounding his owes by taking this stupid line of
> > defence.
> >
> > I wonder how these people who lack even basic common sense has reached such
> > high levels? Compare this with Subramanium Swamy who argues his own cases
> > even in front of SC winning hands down.
> >
> > jas