E-Paper
Grant permanent commission to women army officers with vigilance nod: Supreme Court
The women officers told the Supreme Court that 72 woman army officers fighting for permanent commission had been told to quit or loose their pension benefits.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre and the Indian Army to come back with orders granting permanent commission to those among the 72 women short service commission officers (WSSCO) who do not have any disciplinary or vigilance cases pending against them.
Dealing with contempt petitions filed by 72 officers who were declared unfit for permanent commission (PC), the bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna told the army, “You have to set your house in order,” and directed them to segregate names of officers who are of doubtful integrity or face serious disciplinary issues.
Directing this exercise to be done by the next day of hearing on October 22, the court reminded the army that no additional factors can be introduced to deny permanent commission under the top court’s March 25 order which prescribed 60% as the cut-off marks, medical fitness, and vigilance or disciplinary clearances.
Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain said the 72 officers have been declared unfit as their service records show serious charges such as “disobedience of orders, lapses in government procurement, forging medical documents, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism, un-officer like conduct, poor performance in courses” that renders them unfit under the Army Policies of 1983 and 2012.
In June, the army filed a clarification application in the top court to know whether the judgment of the court requiring the women officers to clear the 60% benchmark and medical fitness will automatically mean they are fit for a permanent commission or the army can declare them unfit on issues of integrity and discipline. This application was dismissed on August 2 as “not maintainable”; the court told the army to comply with the March 25 order.
On Friday, the court explicitly gave the army a free hand to decide cases where there was a vigilance or disciplinary issue.
“We are conscious of the fact that this is the army. If there is a problem on vigilance or disciplinary grounds, you can remove them. But for the rest, come with orders granting permanent commission on the next date. If an officer has issues relating to vigilance/discipline, we make it clear we will not interfere.”
It was only on September 28 that the army released the results of the 72 officers when it became clear that they did clear the 60% threshold fixed by the court verdict.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for some of the women officers, in the contempt petition said, “The fact that these officers have been issued release orders shows that they do not face any discipline or vigilance issues. Now, there are new grounds being brought in to deny us PC (permanent commission).”
The court responded: “All women officers who have attained 60% marks shall be entitled to PC, subject to medical fitness, disciplinary and vigilance clearance. The question is, can there be supervening or additional factors to be considered beyond what the court has stated. You wanted this but did not get this in your clarification application.”
ASG Jain explained that the Special No 5 Selection board held in September 2020 that considered the grant of permanent commission for these officers considered even their vigilance and disciplinary clearance. “We are willing to share the confidential records of each of the 72 officers to the court to satisfy the grounds on which they were denied PC. These pertain to serious questions of integrity as per army policies,” Jain said.
It was the army’s claim that out of 529 WSSCOs who opted for permanent commission, 514 fulfilled the 60% marks criteria but 72 among them were held ineligible on other grounds. It filed an affidavit explaining that all orders passed in the March 25 judgment were complied with.
“We are not faulting you but we do not want to get behind our judgment and scrutinise each file. We have already undertaken a long exercise,” the bench said. The court directed Jain and senior advocate R Balasubramanian, who represented the army, to scrutinise each case and examine where there are serious vigilance or disciplinary grounds to reject permanent commission. “We would trust you as officers of the court to carry out this exercise,” the bench added.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also appearing for a woman officer, told the court that the army has asked the 72 women officers to put in their papers or else their pension benefits will be withdrawn. The court said, “Tell your clients not to be anxious about these issues, We understand the feeling of humiliation they have suffered. Till the next date, hold your horses.”
