AFT supports Captain’s viewpoint and advises maintaining humility while interacting with juniors

The Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that ego must be controlled while interacting with subordinates, even though it has upheld the general court martial (GCM) conviction of a captain for beating a junior. “This case presents valuable life lessons for administrators overall, as well as for uniformed personnel,” said the bench composed of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt-Gen Ravendra Pal Singh in their ruling today.

“Only by following the established policies and procedures may action be taken against a subordinate who has misbehaved or behaved disrespectfully. If not, the matter may spiral out of control and lead to an unanticipated circumstance, the bench continued.

Under Section 47 of the Army Act, the captain was tried on two counts of abusing his subordinate and employing unlawful force against him. He received a harsh reprimand in addition to losing two years of service in order to be promoted.

The occurrences happened in 2010 at an armored regiment stationed next to Gurdaspur at Tibri Cantonment.

The appellant, a young captain with just three years of experience at the time, was summoned to the officers’ mess by a senior officer after feeling insulted by his subordinate’s behavior during morning physical training, according to the bench.

There, things took an unexpected turn, and word got out in the unit that the subordinate had been horribly mistreated and physically abused by the commanders.

This created a scenario akin to a mutiny, which came dangerously close to the unit’s dissolution. Many employees who did not have the rank of officer received discipline, and some of them were fired. Court-martials were also held for officers.

The captain had contended before the AFT that the court had overlooked the prosecution witnesses’ cross-examination and that the GCM’s conclusions were erroneous. He said he was being used as a scapegoat.

Upon reviewing the GCM procedures and examining the testimony of the witnesses, the bench dismissed the captain’s arguments and said that a responsible leader of soldiers should be aware of the consequences of their physical acts.