Warrior's last war: a matter of honour vs. propriety. Raj Chengappa on Army Chief's Age Row (6 parts)

TRIBUNE ANALYSIS
ARMY CHIEF’S AGE ROWA matter of honour vs proprietyBy Raj Chengappa Editor-in-Chief

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4

With over 1.3 million personnel, the Indian Army is considered to be among the world's largest armed forces and has many challenges to face. Vijay Kumar Singh, the Chief of Army Staff, in his statutory complaint to the Union Government on August 26, 2011 outlines some of them in the first paragraph.

Singh states, “The attention of the world is focused on how India is consolidating its military capabilities, with more focused strategy of strengthening military structures, realising military modernisation, expanding its strategic space in the region, becoming a reckonable military power and achieving a desired degree of military balance with leading nations.”

Fine words, but then the next 91 paragraphs of his plaint to the government had nothing to do with the critical issues that the Indian Army faces. Instead, it spells out his crusade to get his date of birth corrected in the records of the military branches he oversees and seeks redressal from the Government on the issue. It is unprecedented for a serving chief to take recourse to filing a statutory complaint against the Government.

General Singh though believes it is a matter of his constitutional right and a question of his “honour” to set right what he believes is an organisation wrong. The crux of the confrontation pertains to the date of his birth. He maintains that his date of birth is May 10, 1951 while a wing of the Indian Army, the Military Secretary Branch, maintains that it is May 10, 1950 — a year earlier. The clash is being described as a “Matter of Honour versus Tenure”.

Impact on succession

If his date of birth is corrected, the Army Chief would get to serve till March 31, 2013 when he completes three years in service rather than retire on May 31, 2012 — an addition of 10 more months. (The Army Chief's tenure is for three years or till he completes 62 years of age, whichever is earlier). It would also have implications for the succession plan in the Army as many of the top brass from whom the next chief is to be selected would retire by then.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) on December 30, 2011, went into great detail into the points raised in General Singh's statutory complaint and concluded, “After analysing all the issues raised by the complainant in the light of the documents on record and the applicable rules… his (the Army Chief's) official date of birth will continue to remain May 10, 1950” and for added emphasis the order spelt out the date in words “May Tenth Nineteen Hundred and Fifty”. The decision was “By order and in the name of the President”.

The Army Chief then stunned the Government and the nation by taking the matter to the next level of confrontation. He has now approached the Supreme Court for relief. It is the first time that a serving Army chief has gone to court challenging an order of the Union Government. The Supreme Court has so far not heard his petition. In the light of the importance of the outcome not just for the Indian armed forces but for the nation, The Tribune, presents the full facts of the case and the issues involved in public interest.

The first anomaly

The origin of the dispute starts from the very beginning of his career when Vijay Kumar Singh, then all of 14 or 15 depending on which date of birth is taken, applied for the entrance examination to the National Defence Academy (NDA) in Khadakwasla near Pune, the country's premier institute that imparts training to officer cadets of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Belonging to Hisar, now in Haryana, Vijay Kumar Singh, was the eldest of the three sons of Colonel Jagat Singh. He was then studying in Birla Public School, a boarding school in Pilani, Rajasthan. In personal conversations Singh recalled that he was good in mathematics and thought of pursuing engineering. Fate willed otherwise.

When the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on June 5, 1965 put out an advertisement for the NDA course commencing on July 1, 1966, his teachers urged him to apply for the armed forces as did his father.

It is here that the young Vijay Kumar Singh committed his first “error” by filling his date of birth as May 10, 1950 in the application form which he completed on July 29, 1965. It didn't make him ineligible to take the examination because the stipulation was that the candidate must have been born not earlier than January 2, 1949 and not later than July 1, 1951 to be eligible.

There are, however, various versions as to why and how this “error” occurred. Some media reports state that it was his school teacher who had helped him fill up the form and entered his date of birth erroneously.

That variance has been the subject of much debate as it involves a legal technicality for under the UPSC rules the candidate has to fill the form in his own handwriting and certify that the statements made therein are true to the best of his knowledge. Any violation, it is opined, may result in disqualification.

In his letter of May 10, 2006 to Lt General Richard Khare, the then Military Secretary, Vijay Kumar Singh, then a Major General and Chief of Staff of the 15 Corp in Srinagar, wrote that, “it is submitted that the date of birth given in the UPSC form was filled as per details given by the school clerk and the same was subsequently maintained till the original certificate was received. In the absence of original certificate the error due to what the clerk gave continued.”

In his second opinion on the matter to the MoD dated June 8, 2011, Goolam
E. Vahanvati, Attorney General of India, refers to an opinion given by Justice JS Verma, the former Chief Justice of India, who was consulted in the matter by a wing of the Army.

Justice Verma had opined then: “It appears that the only document relied on to provide a feeble support to a contrary view may be the initial UPSC Form of Application for Admission to the NDA that was filled by a teacher of the school where VK Singh was a student. That erroneously mentions that the Date of Birth as May 10, 1950. The teacher concerned has later unequivocally clarified that it was his mistake.”

Who filled the form?

Vahanvati in his opinion points out that: “This by itself is a remarkable statement considering the fact that the (UPSC) Application form itself in the very fourth line at the heading instructs as under ‘To be filled in the candidate’s own handwriting’. Not only that, but the declaration made by the candidate is that, ‘the statements made in the application are true to the best of my knowledge’ and belief.”

Vahanvati then goes on to add: “I need not labour this point further except to point out that the statements now made, if it all this can be considered, makes the matter more serious as it shows that the Application which was required to be filled in the candidate's own handwriting was in fact filled by a teacher and not by Shri VK Singh.”

Vahanvati does not pursue this line of argument in his opinion. But in all subsequent petitions including in the writ petition to the Supreme Court where a reference to the application form is made, General Singh states that the error was “inadvertent” with no mention of the clerical error or the teacher filling up the form. He now maintains that it was he who filled the form.

An error in an application form is always subject to correction so even if it was filled up by him there was scope to make amends. But then a peculiar set of circumstances resulted in conflicting dates being maintained in Army records subsequently.

For verifying the age, under the rules, the UPSC requires that either the candidate submit his matriculation certificate or in case he is to appear for the examination have an age certificate issued by the headmaster/principal of the institution from where he is studying, showing the date of his birth or his exact age as recorded in the institution’s ‘Admission Register’. But the instructions are clear: A candidate would finally need to submit his original matriculation or equivalent certificate before he is admitted to the NDA.

As Vijay Kumar Singh was to appear for his Class X Board examinations being conducted by the Rajasthan Secondary Education Board later that year to provide proof of date of birth he states that his father had a certificate issued from the Officer Commanding of his unit, 14 Rajput Regiment, dated August 3, 1965, submitted to the UPSC before the written examinations that was held in December 1965.

It states: “Certified that according to record of service in respect of IC-3753 Major Jagat Singh maintained in this office, the date of birth of his son Vijay Kumar Singh is May 10, 1951.” Significantly, the year mentioned of his birth is 1951 and not 1950.

Getting into NDA

The young Vijay Kumar Singh then appears for the NDA examinations and subsequently for his Secondary School examinations. In early May 1966, the UPSC writes to him stating that he has been declared successful in the NDA examinations and provisionally admitted to the Academy, subject to furnishing proof of having passed the Class X examination and a medical examination in one of their centres.

On May 11, 1966, Vijay Kumar Singh then clears a medical test done by the AFCME, Delhi, wherein his date of birth is shown as May 10, 1951. His father then writes to the Headmaster of Birla Public School on June 10, 1966 stating that he needs to send proof to the UPSC that his son had passed Class X. His father gives as reference a letter from the UPSC dated June 1, 1966 to Vijay Kumar Singh asking for it. His father marks a copy of the letter to the UPSC branch concerned.

On June 16, 1966, Radha Raman Pathak, the then headmaster, Birla Public School, writes to Jagat Singh stating: “I am happy to inform you that your ward Vijay Kumar Singh has passed in the Secondary School Certificate Examination of 1966 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and has managed to get a First Division with distinction in maths.”

The school is also said to have issued a transfer certificate during that period. In the General's writ petition, a duplicate copy of the transfer certificate from the Birla Public School is produced as an annexure which lists his date as May 10, 1951. Curiously, the duplicate copy is issued on October 19, 2011. No date is indicated of when it was originally issued.

On June 18, 1966, the UPSC sends a letter about the discrepancy in the date of birth as compared to what was filled by Vijay Kumar Singh in the original application form. It is not clear whether it was referring to the birth certificate submitted earlier by his father or the one that has just been sent.

Discrepancy found

Sri Krishan, Under Secretary, UPSC, in his letter to Vijay Kumar Singh states: “With reference to your application to the above examination, I am directed to say that you have claimed May 10, 1950 as your date of birth in column 5 of the application where as in the certificate submitted by you, the date of birth is shown as May 10, 1951. You are required to clarify the discrepancy and intimate the correct date of birth.”

Singh in his petition then states that his father wrote to the UPSC on June 20, 1966 enclosing the letter sent by the school that he had successfully cleared the Secondary School Certificate “with distinction in maths”. No mention though is made about the date of birth or reference to the letter of June 18 sent by the UPSC requesting clarification of the discrepancy in the date of birth.

Vijay Kumar Singh clarifies that in response to the letter of the UPSC dated June 18, 1966, he went personally to Delhi and alongwith a letter dated June 24, 1966 submitted a provisional matriculation certificate clarifying that his date of birth is May 10, 1951. The UPSC issued a receipt to him of the letter on June 27, 1966 and he has produced a copy of the receipt in his writ petition.

According to Singh, “As far as I was concerned the UPSC had noted my date of birth as May 10, 1951 even before I was selected for training at the NDA. Had this clarification not been accepted then clearance for me to join the NDA would not have been given.”

When the MoD went into the whole matter last year, the UPSC reported back that it was not able to locate any of the records pertaining to the correspondence with Vijay Kumar Singh or his father, Jagat Singh. Also they were not able to retrieve the personal files of his father which would have had a record of his son's date of birth as these files were destroyed after a certain period of time.

These facts have compounded the General's quest to prove that he had been wronged.

Tomorrow: The Second Big Anomaly

TRIBUNE ANALYSISARMY CHIEF’S AGE ROW-PART 2
A MATTER OF HONOUR VS PROPRIETYThe second big anomalyBy Raj Chengappa, Editor-in-Chief

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4

Among the first things that every Gentleman Cadet who joins the National Defence Academy (NDA) at Khadakwasla is asked to do is to write a brief autobiography. When Vijay Kumar Singh reported to the NDA on 13 July 1966 to begin his training, he wrote in his autobiography, “I was born on 10th May 1951 in Poona. My father is an army officer. I have two younger brothers and a younger sister. I first went to St Columbus High School and did my first class from there. Then I joined the Birla Public School, Pilani.”

He continues his autobiography in a matter-of-fact way stating: “In school I used to play all the games but was good at basketball, football and hockey as well as volleyball. I am also a good rider and was one of the best at school. I have also done a lot of hiking. I have gone up to a height of 15,000 ft. As for my hobby I collect leaves and sketches.”

Proof of birth

While he does come across as a confident and accomplished lad, the most important point is that he writes his date of birth as 10 May 1951. These are among the several documents that General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of Army Staff, cites as proof in his statutory complaint to the Union Government challenging the order to maintain his date of birth as 10 May 1950. It is also cited in his writ petition to the Supreme Court which is yet to be taken up for hearing.

In the first part of the series that appeared in The Tribune yesterday, it was pointed that the first anomaly in his date of birth noting occurred in the application form for the NDA examination prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). In the form, Vijay Kumar Singh filled his date of birth as 10 May 1950.

The UPSC did point out the discrepancy in June 1966 when Singh was provisionally selected for the NDA after passing the examinations and clearing his medicals. Singh claimed in his petition that he then went to the UPSC’s office personally in Delhi and along with a letter from his father submitted a provisional matriculation certificate which gave his date of birth as 10 May 1951 and asked for a correction in the records.

In his statutory complaint Singh cites this as proof of him having given documentary evidence to correct his date of birth and also evidence that the UPSC had accepted it otherwise the UPSC would not have allowed him to join the NDA. As he stated, “ As far as I was concerned the UPSC had noted my date of birth as May 10, 1951 even before I was selected for training at the NDA.”

The MoD in its order of 30 December 2011 rejecting the statutory complaint made by General Singh states that, “There is no record either with the complainant or with the Army Headquarters or the UPSC to show that the UPSC had accepted the change in the date of birth. The complainant has also referred to some other correspondence such as submission of School Leaving Certificate which is not available with either the UPSC or in the original dossier sent by the UPSC to Army HQ. The assertion of the complainant that as far as he is concerned the UPSC had noted his date of birth as 10 May1951 is not supported by any document on record.”

To prove that barring the UPSC form he had consistently maintained his date of birth as 10 May 1951, General Singh cites a whole range of documents during that period in which it is listed as such. Among them is the SP Form-103 which every candidate seeking commission in the armed forces has to fill up before he appears before the Service Selection Board (SSB) interview. General Singh filled up his form on May 9, 1966 and in it had entered 10 May 1951 as his date of birth.

The SP Form-103 had to be separately attested by the DIG, CID and IB, Rajasthan (where he was studying) and the DIG, CID and IB, Punjab (as VK Singh had shown Hisar then in Punjab as his native place). General Singh states that verification done by these authorities on 26 June 1966 reflects the date of birth as 10 May 1951.

Counter arguments

The MoD in its order rejecting Singh’s statutory complaint points out that the five copies of the SP-103 forms were forwarded to both revenue and police authorities of Rajasthan and Punjab “for verifying the character and antecedents with reference to the place of residence of the complaint.” The implication was that these authorities were not vouching for the date of birth that Singh had entered in the SP-103 form but his character and standing.

The MoD then point out that on 9 May 1966 the same date as General Singh had filled up the SP Form 103, another form called SP-Form 44 was filled up at the SSB. On that the date of birth was recorded as 10 May 1950. The form also records the verification by the revenue and police authorities at the time of selection to the NDA in 1966 apart from other details such as his marks in the interview and allotment to the 36th Course at NDA.

General Singh maintains in his plaint that the SP-44 form “is prepared before a candidate is sent to the SSB well before the selection for NDA and is filled on the basis of the UPSC Application Form.” Perhaps he didn’t notice that it was filled on the same day that he had filled up SP-103 form.

The MOD in its order rejecting General Singh’s statutory complaint states, “The importance of Form SP-44 vis-à-vis SP-103 cannot be discounted since it forms an integral part of an officer’s recruitment, from the stage of his selection by the UPSC, training at the NDA and Indian Military Academy and till the allotment of a Unit in the army, recording his marks in the interview and details of the course, roll number at NDA and IMA and IC number.”

At the NDA, which is a three-year course, General Singh was initially keen on joining the Air Force and gave it as his first preference. But he recalls that his father, Colonel Jagat Singh, talked him out of it and advised him to join the army. After he passed out of the NDA as is usual all graduating Gentlemen Cadets are sent for a year to the Indian Military Academy (IMA) in Dehradun to do a year’s officer training course.

At the IMA every candidate has a separate Dossier maintained including personal particulars and training record. The second big anomaly occurs when Vijay Kumar Singh fills up the form for his Dossier and in the date of birth column he writes 10 May 1950. Singh had arrived at the Academy on 21 July 1969 and the form in question was filled up by him on 29 July 1969, eight days later. It was countersigned by an officer of the IMA on July 30, 1969.

Second anomaly

As an explanation as to why he wrote1950 instead of 1951 on the Dossier, Singh states that the “orders were to fill the column for date of birth as per the UPSC application form.” The MoD hammers that anomaly home in its order dismissing Singh’s complaint stating, “No order directing this is forthcoming on the records. If the UPSC had already noted his date of birth as 10 May 1951 as claimed by the complainant he could have indicated this date as his birth. However, the date of birth was indicated as May 10, 1950.”

The MoD further points out that the ‘Record of Particulars’ in the IMA Dossier reads as “Gentleman Cadet- Course No. — 45th Regular Course. Name — Vijay Kumar Singh, IMA No. 10303, Date of Birth — 10 May 1950; Commissioned into — Infantry, Personal Number Alloted — IC 24173, Date of Commission — 14 June 1970.” It also stated that the IMA’s Final Assessment and Confidential Report of June 1970 show the date of birth as May 10, 1950.

The IMA mix-up

Singh in his petition to the Government states that he brought the discrepancy in the date of birth to the notice of the IMA authorities at that point itself. He claims that the IMA then corresponded with Birla Public School, Pilani, where he studied, asking it to provide a certificate giving the correct date of birth which it did. Singh states, “Accordingly the date of birth by the IMA in my Record of Service which is sent to the Adjutant General branch (MP 5/6) after commissioning is also 10th May 1951.”

The MoD in its ruling shot down Singh’s claims stating, “There is no record to support his assertion. If the authorities in the IMA had corrected the date of birth as 10 May 1951, their Dossier, the ‘Record of Particulars’ and Final Assessment and Confidential Report should not have continued to show the date of birth as May 10, 1950.”

Singh, however, has other evidence to counter such assertions. In his petition he states that the IMA issues an identity card with a unique number that is carried by the officer throughout his service. Importantly, the ID card has 10 May 1951 as his date of birth. Also the ‘Record of Service IAFZ 2041’, which is prepared on the commissioning of an officer and his joining a unit carries a similar date. Singh was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14th June 1970 and was posted to an Infantry Unit, the 2nd Rajput Battalion, based then in Delhi.

The MoD in its orders is hard put to explain this contradiction. It relies on the opinion given by Goolam Vahanvatti, the Attorney General of India, who pointed out that the requisite checking was not done by the Manpower Planning Directorate regarding verification of the date of birth in Singh’s case at this stage.

The MoD goes on to state that the Record of Service was a document prepared by Singh himself and then countersigned by the officiating Commanding Officer. It charges Singh with “not correctly representing his date of birth in the form IAFZ 2041.” After faulting the concerned authorities responsible for preparing and authenticating the record, it concludes, “In the absence of authentication of 10 May 1951 as the date of birth, its basis for the Record of Service cannot be accepted.”

Conflicting records

By now, it is apparent that the two branches of the Army, the Adjutant General (AG) Branch and the Military Secretary (MS) Branch, were maintaining two different dates of birth for Vijay Kumar Singh. While the AG looks after recruitment and keeps tracks of all Gentleman Cadets selected, the MS takes over once the officer is commissioned and maintains his records of service and oversees his postings and promotions. There was no reconciliation of the records then and has not been to this date.

There is another peculiar turn of events. The UPSC rule states that the original matriculation certificate must be sent to the concerned Army directorate as soon as it is received. Though Singh passes his Class X board examinations in 1966, he received his certificate only in 1971 because of the oddest set of circumstances.

According to him, by the time the certificate is sent to his father’s unit he had been transferred out. It was then sent to his village in Hisar where it lay unattended till Singh came home in 1971 and discovered it. On the certificate his date of birth is shown as 10 May 1951. Singh said he had forwarded it to the AG Branch that year itself. The delay in submitting his original certificate, along with the anomalies in the entries in forms, would again compound his quest to correct the wrong he strongly believes occurred.

Tomorrow: The twist in the tale

TRIBUNE ANALYSISARMY CHIEF’S AGE ROW-PART 3
A MATTER OF HONOUR VS PROPRIETYThe Twist in the Tale
By Raj Chengappa, Editor-in-Chief

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4

Deep in the bowels of South Block, there are two branches of the Army that have a key role in determining whether General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of Army Staff, was right in appealing to the highest court in India to have his date of birth corrected in the records.
The headquarters of both these branches in Delhi are walking distance from each other. Just two flights of stairs away to be precise. Yet the lack of communication between the two over Singh’s date of birth appears to have resulted in the most messy public confrontation between the Army Chief and the Union of India.
On the ground floor of South Block is the Military Secretary's (MS) Branch close to what is known as the Library Section. The MS Branch is responsible for overseeing all annual confidential records, postings and promotions of commissioned officers and maintains their personal files.

On the second floor is the Adjutant General's office that, among other things, is responsible for manpower planning, recruitment and storage of all records of Army personnel. Since there are over 1 million personnel in the Army, the records section is located in West Block No. 3 in RK Puram, around 9 km away.

Two don’t tally

The labyrinthine chambers of these two behemoths may hold the clue to why both these branches of the Indian Army have been maintaining different dates of birth ever since Vijay Kumar Singh was commissioned on 14 June 1970 — almost 42 years ago. While the MS Branch maintains that the Army Chief's date of birth is 10 May 1950, the AG's Branch in its records has it as 10 May 1951 — exactly a year's difference.

As had been mentioned in Part 1 and 2 of The Tribune series on the Army Chief's Age Row, there was a curious set of circumstances that led to two sets of dates being maintained by two major branches of the Army. This despite these two branches having one of the most elaborate systems of record keeping in the country, maintaining even the smallest detail of all personnel.

In the Army Chief's ‘Record of Service’ maintained by the AG's Branch, for instance, apart from his date of birth (shown as 10 May 1951), it has his educational qualifications, his date of commissioning, every single course he took, all his postings and promotions, the combat theatres he served in (over half a dozen of them), his marriage (to Bharti on 25 June 1975 in Bhiwani), his children (Mrinalini and Yogja with their date of births), his illnesses (among them a nasal allergy on 18 June 1991) and his awards and decorations (12 of them).

In Part 2, there is record of every financial transaction he has made exceeding Rs 10,000, including purchases of electronic goods or cars apart from land and buildings acquired.

Despite the elaborate records that the Army collects, when it comes to errors concerning the date of birth, there has been remarkably little dispute. On 17 November 2011, the RTI Cell of the Army in reply to a query stated that there have been only five cases of changes of birth dates of Army officers since 1947. Three of them were decided by a court order and in one case concerning a Lieutenant General, it took 36 years for him to get relief.

In Vijay Kumar Singh's case, as mentioned in the earlier parts of the series, the problem occurred right from the beginning when he claims he "inadvertently" entered his date of birth as 10 May 1950 in the original UPSC form that he had filled up while applying for the National Defence Academy (NDA) examination on 29 July 1965. The minimum qualification for entering the NDA is passing the Class X (matriculation) examination. But candidates like Singh who were appearing for theClass X examinations before the course began in July 1966 could also apply subject to them having provided proof that they had cleared the exams.

Elusive certificate

As proof of the date of birth, Rule 136 of the Army Manual states that the age recorded in the enrolment form of a person shall be in conformity with the date given in the matriculation certificate or equivalent examination. Or if no date of birth is shown on the certificate, then a school transfer/leaving certificate could be submitted or a certificate from the headmaster giving the exact age as recorded in the school admission file.

In Singh's case, as he was yet to pass his Matriculation, he states that his father, Colonel Jagat Singh, who was then serving at 14 Rajput Regiment, had his Officer Commanding issue a certificate that was submitted to the UPSC before he did the NDA exams in December 1965. Singh did his Class X Board examinations in March 1966.

In May 1966, the NDA results were declared ahead of the Class X results and Singh was among those who passed. As part of the requirement he states he submitted to the UPSC a provisional certificate attested by his school, Birla Public School, Pilani, that showed his date of birth to be 10 May 1951. On 18 June 1966, the UPSC sent him a letter pointing out the discrepancy in the date of birth as compared to the form he had filled up for the NDA examination and requested him to clarify the correct date of birth.

With his Class X Board examinations just out and the original certificate expected to come only after six months, Singh got his school principal to issue a Secondary School Transfer Certificate that certified that he had passed the X Board examinations and that his date of birth was 10 May 1951. He stated that along with a covering letter from his father he personally handed over the certificate to the UPSC office in Delhi on 29 June 1966.

Singh believed that the UPSC had accepted the change and hence he was permitted to join the NDA. As proof that he had delivered such a letter, in his statutory complaint to the Union of India in August 2011 (the first time an Army Chief had resorted to such a plaint), Singh attached a copy of the stamped receipt that the UPSC gave him.

Among the points made by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in its order of 30 December 2011 rejecting the Army Chief's statutory complaint was that he had produced no proof to show that the UPSC had issued a formal letter correcting the discrepancy. The MoD also pointed out that the UPSC in its files had no record of any communication it had with Singh or his father with regard to the matter.

Why the mix-up

So how then did the two branches of the Army, MS and AG, end up with varying dates on their records? The answer may lie in the numerous forms that the Army requires when a candidate is selected for the NDA and enters the Academy. This forms the basis of his future records. After passing the written examination, a candidate has to appear before a Service Selection Board (SSB) where apart from being interviewed by a panel of officers he also has to pass intelligence, psychological and physical endurance tests.

In Singh's case, since he had opted for the Air Force as his first choice, he was sent to the SSB in Dehradun. As soon as he arrived on 9 May 1966, as part of standard procedure, he was asked to fill up Form SP-103. This asked for details such as UPSC roll number, name, height, identification marks, date and place of birth, particulars of his parents, educational qualifications, references and home address. In that form Singh filled up his date of birth as 10 May 1951.

Simultaneously, another Form SP-44 is filled up by a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) that is to test the candidates. The data such as name, date of birth and other details are taken from the candidate’s UPSC form. In this form, Singh's date of birth is entered as 10 May 1950 reflecting what he had filled up in his original Application form. This form is also dated as 9 May 1966, the same day that Singh filled up his SP-103 form.

If the candidates were successful, as Singh was, the SP-103 form filled up by them were then sent for "verification of character and antecedents" to revenue and police officials of the district essentially the District Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police (SP) and the SP (CID). Singh claims that since the SP-103 form also contained his date of birth these officials had verified it. But the MoD in its order pointed out that this was mainly for character verification and could not be taken as authentication of his birth records.

The SP-103 is sent to the NDA where it becomes part of the Dossier of the candidate. After completion these are sent to the IMA, where a fresh set of Dossiers are compiled. Singh joined the IMA in July 1969 and while filling up the forms in the 'Record of Particulars' Singh wrote his date of birth as 10 May 1950. He was then 18 or 19 years of age depending on which date of birth is considered and can no more claim to be a minor. In his complaint, he states that the instructions were to fill the application form "as per the UPSC application form.”

Mounting evidence

The General claims he then got the IMA to write to his school and have the correct date of birth attested. The MoD, in its order, pointed out that IMA records showed no such communication with the school or that it had corrected the records on the basis of such communication. The MoD also pointed out that the IMA's Dossier, Record of Particulars, Final Assessment and Confidential report also showed Singh’s date of birth as 10 May 1950, which indicated that no correction had been made.

Singh counters such statements by citing the fact that his ID card (IC 24173) issued by the IMA, which he has to carry throughout his years of service, has his date of birth as 10 May 1951. The MoD's explanation is that the data is taken from the SP-103 form which Singh himself had filled up when he went to the SSB. But the MoD is hard put to explain why there was no verification done by the IMA when its other records had a contradictory date of birth.

There is one more form that is critical to the entire row. When a candidate passes out of the IMA and is commissioned into the Army, he is assigned to a Unit. As soon as he reports for duty, he fills up an IAFZ-2041 form which is the basic ‘Record of Service’. The details filled up in the form are to be authenticated by an officer of the unit. In Singh's case he is commissioned on 14 June 1970 and sent to the 14 Rajput, an infantry battalion, stationed in Delhi and in his IAFZ-2041 form he writes 10 May 1951 as his date of birth and this is authenticated by his Unit officer.

No authentication

In its order, the MoD charges Singh with “not correctly representing his date of birth”. Relying on advice given by Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney General of India, the MoD points out that the annexure to the IAFZ-2041 states: “Officers will ensure that particulars given by them are correct and agree with those given by them in the original application for the grant of commissioning ie UPSC.” The MoD concludes that “in the absence of authentication of 10 May 1951 as the date of birth, its basis for the Record of Service cannot be accepted.”

All these forms and dossiers are then sent to the MS Branch where they become part of the record in a register. A copy is also sent to the AG's Manpower Planning Unit 5 & 6, which is the repository of all commissioned officers records. The AG's Recruiting Directorate also sends the SP-44 form to MS Branch.

Vahanvati in his advice to the MoD on 11 May 2011 pointed out that when Singh was commissioned, there were four documents that showed his date of birth as 10 May 1951. These are: SP-103 which he filled up at the SSB, the autobiography he wrote in the NDA, the Record of Service taken from particulars he had filled up and the school transfer certificate. Vahanvati points out that of these four documents, three had been written by Singh himself.

Of the documents that show his date of birth being 10 May 1950, two of them were written by Singh himself — the UPSC form and his dossier in the IMA. The note of commissioning dated 22 January 1971 also lists the same date.

To further disprove Singh's contentions, Vahanvati points out that within the AG Branch itself there are two sets of dates being maintained. He states that the AG Recruiting Directorate, which is tasked with verifying the date of birth, has a noting of 4 May 1971 that also shows the date of birth as 10 May 1950 — this is nearly one year after Singh gets commissioned into the Army. Vahanvati further states that in this noting "it is also confirmed that the date of birth and educational qualifications of the cadets submitted to the NDA were verified by the UPSC."

The MoD in its order mounts further evidence in the form of the mandatory Gazette notification with respect to the 45th Regular Course of the IMA that Singh belonged to. His date of birth in this vital document is recorded as 10 May 1950. The MoD points out that the file was initiated by the MS Branch, it was seen and vetted by the AG's Recruiting Branch, the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA), and finally approved by the Ministry itself.

Further, the MoD points out that two of Singh's coursemates had queries about their date of birth and these were rectified. In the case of Baldev Singh Dhaliwal (IC24292), his date of birth was corrected and AK More, another coursemate of Singh, the CGDA sought verification of the date of birth as no indication was given in his application form regarding its verification. Significantly, the MoD adds, "No such observation was made" with regard to Singh.

The MoD's point was that if there was some ambiguity about Singh's date of birth record, it would have been pointed out then. When the MoD published the draft notification in the Gazette of India (No. 2558 dated 18 September 1971), next to Singh's name it showed his date of birth as 10 May 1950.

Singh's counter is that his commission was "provisional" as his matriculation certificate had yet to be submitted because of a peculiar turn of events. The original certificate, he states in his petition, went wrongly to his father's unit. As he had been transferred out, the postal department sent it to his village address where it lay till Singh went home in 1971 and discovered it. He said he promptly sent the original certificate through his company unit and after that his commission was regularised.

The MoD dismisses his assertion and points out that his commission in the draft gazette notification clearly mentions that he was a "regular commissioned" officer. Then, when the Army List 1974-75 is published, the most authentic document listing those who had been commissioned, Singh's name figures and his date of birth is mentioned as 10 May 1950.

Under Army rules, Singh has to request a correction within two years of its publication after which he forfeits the right to do so. The General makes no such official and formal request till 2006 by which time the MoD says it is too late to make any changes and his appeal had been timed out.

Tomorrow: The General’s Gambit

TRIBUNE ANALYSISARMY CHIEF’S AGE ROW - PART 4
A MATTER OF HONOUR VS PROPRIETYThe General’s GambitBy Raj Chengappa, Editor-in-Chief

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4

“Requests for change of dates of birth of members of the defence services should not be encouraged. Only in very special cases the change be sponsored provided there is overwhelming evidence to show that the date of birth recorded in the services records is incorrect… Quite apart from the financial effect of such changes in dates of birth of officers etc they have certain far reaching implications affecting promotion…”

— Office Memorandum,
No 757/ D(MS) D(Coord) Ministry of Defence, 23 June 1954

“No requests for change of birth shall be entertained after the lapse of two years from the date of grant of first commission in case of commissioned officers…”

— Office Memorandum,
35 (1)/A/63 B, Ministry of Defence, 21 April 1964

GIVEN the poor system of registration of births that existed soon after Independence, the Government of India thought it wise to pass tough rules governing requests for change of dates of birth. That included the Ministry of Defence which in 1954 passed an Office Memorandum (OM) discouraging requests for change of dates of birth. In 1964 it followed it up with another OM putting a strict time frame of two years from the date of grant of first commission within which the officer concerned could petition the Ministry for a change.

Chief of Army Staff General Vijay Kumar Singh's writ petition for reconciling his date of birth in the Army records in the highest court of the land may well be determined by these two office memoranda that apply to all armed forces personnel with no exceptions.

Time barred

General Singh was commissioned into the Indian Army on 14 June 1970 and if he had any issues with the correctness of his date of birth, he should have made a formal complaint to the Military Secretary Branch through his Unit by June 1972. He did not for the reasons outlined in previous parts of the series carried by The Tribune.

Even if the Army List of 1974-75 was published (which formally mentioned the commission of Vijay Kumar Singh and his date of birth as 10 May 1950) is taken as the final commissioning document, technically he would have had to make an appeal within two years of its publication.

By his own admission, in his statutory complaint to the Union Government and his writ petition, the first time he made an effort to amend his date of birth in the Army List was in 1985 when as a Major, he approached the Adjutant General Branch dealing with the records section.

According to Singh, he was not aware of the publication of the Army List when it came out as it was meant for restricted supply and not circulated at the Unit he was serving then. He also pointed out that since the ID Card issued to him by the Indian Military Academy (IMA) at the time of commissioning had his date of birth as 10 May 1951 he believed that his earlier efforts to get his date of birth corrected in the original UPSC Application Form had succeeded.

Singh states in his statutory complaint to the Government in August 2011, that in 1985, when a friend mentioned to him about the discrepancy in the Army List, he approached the AG Branch Manpower Planning (MP) 5/6 for help. He states that he was informed that as per their records his date of birth was 15 May 1951 and that "as they were the designated authority on these matters, therefore, I should not worry about the Army List and it would get automatically updated with corrected data."

MoD's counter

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) does not buy Singh's argument. In its order of 30 December 2011 rejecting the General's statutory complaint it states, "There is no record to substantiate this assertion. Therefore it cannot be accepted." Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney General of India, who was consulted by the MoD on the entire issue, in his advice given on 21 November 2011, is more scathing in his comments over the 1985 attempt stating, " If a person, as painstaking as the complainant appears to be in his efforts to 'rectify' his date of birth, knew that there was a discrepancy with regard to the Army List, surely he would not have left it at the level of an oral assurance and ensured that rectification did in fact take place."

Vijay Kumar Singh made his next bid to change his date of birth as a Brigadier in 2002 when he approached the Management Information System Organisation (MISO) wing that publishes the Nominal Roll of Brigadiers and above. In the Nominal Roll, his date of birth was listed as 10 May 1950. Singh states that he had forwarded a copy of his matriculation certificate to it. But in its order the MoD pointed out, "Here again, there are no records either with MISO or with the complainant to substantiate the assertion."

Yet it isn't as if the MoD is without fault. Singh points out that all his Confidential Records maintained by the MS Branch on which his promotions were based, have his date of birth as 10 May 1951 as do the awards and decorations he won from time to time.

The first time that the MoD officially acknowledged that there was a discrepancy in the records maintaining his date of birth was in 2006 when Singh was a Major General and had completed 36 years of service in the Army. The MS Branch had sent a proposal to the MoD empanelling Singh in the rank of Lieutenant General to be posted as Commander of 10 Corp. Such a procedure is followed as any promotion from the rank of Major General to Lieutenant General in the Army has to be approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) chaired by the Prime Minister.

The then Joint Secretary (G and Air), MoD, in a note of 23 April 2006 to the Army HQ pointed out that Singh's date of birth in the 'Nominal Roll' was recorded as 10 May 1950 whereas in the 'Paramount Card', which is a summary of his entire record of service, the date given was 10 May 1951. He also pointed out that the original UPSC application form for the NDA examination as well as the draft Gazette notification of the 45 Regular Course for IMA, which Singh was part of, gave his date of birth as 10 May 1950. The Joint Secretary wanted the note to reflect the correct date of birth.

On 3 May 2006, Lt General Richard Khare, the then Military Secretary, wrote to Singh stating these anomalies and ended by stating, "You are hereby requested that, in future, you may reflect the correct date of birth which is 10 May 1950… Alternatively, you may clarify the variance and the correct date of birth as known by you."

To this, Singh, who was then Chief of Staff at 15 Corps HQ, replied on 10 May 2006 starting with "My dear General" and explaining that as his Secondary School Certificate did not arrive till 1971, the AG's branch had marked his commission as "provisional." And on receipt of the certificate "the provisional status was removed" and his corrected date of birth was accepted by them.

Justifying the anomaly

Singh then stated that he was attaching the original certificate and a copy of the 'Record of Service' maintained by the AG's MP5 for his perusal. About the anomalies in the other documents, Singh wrote, "it is submitted that the date given in the UPSC form was filled as per details given by the school clerk and the same was subsequently maintained till the original certificate was received. In the absence of the original certificate the error made due to what the clerk gave continued. The correct date of birth has accordingly been mentioned on the CR's since submission of the original certificate."

It is in this letter he put down on record his efforts to get the date of birth corrected in 1985 and in 2002. He ended the letter by stating, "I have always retained the impression that the necessary correction would have been carried out by the MS Branch at the behest of AG's Branch. It appears that this impression has been wrong and a doubt has come up almost 35 years after submission of correct certificates. It is required that necessary corrections may now be made per records maintained by AG's branch."

Conflicting records

By making such an assertion, Singh for the first time put down in writing as to why he believed the discrepancy between the records of the AG's Branch and the MS Branch with regard to his date of birth came about. There was an indication that the late arrival of his certificate may have compounded his earlier request to the UPSC in 1966 when the discrepancy in his date of birth was first noticed. This may also explain why the IMA had conflicting records reflecting his date of birth that was then inherited by the two Army Branches, AG and MS.

From Singh's account in his letter to Khare he had sent his certificate to the AG Branch for correction of his date of birth a year after he was commissioned in 1970. Perhaps he should have submitted it to the MS Branch which had taken charge of his records after he was commissioned and was supposedly the sanctioning authority for making changes in the date of birth in the records.

In his complaint to the government, Singh states he met Khare, the then Military Secretary, after he sent the letter to him. According to Singh, Khare explained "the entire issue in detail. I was told that if my confidential reports reflected my date of birth as 10 May 1951, then I should have no reason for concern. I was told that all records will be checked again and the reconciliation will be carried out."

Singh states on the basis of this reassurance he did not pursue the matter further about correction of his date of birth at that time. Singh was then promoted as a Lieutenant General and posted as General Officer Commanding of the Ambala based 2 Corp. His apparent acquiescence during this crucial period is a subject of debate.

The MoD, though, has a different account of how Khare handled the matter after he received Singh's letter of 10 May 2006. In its order of 30 December 2011, the MoD states, "Records indicate that the case was examined in detail in the MS Branch. The MP Directorate, AG Branch informed MS branch that the service records of the Late Col Jagat Singh, the complainant's father, show that the Veteran Register did not have any details with regard to dates of birth of his children. Keeping in view the rule position that the date of birth entered in the Army List as verified by the complainants original UPSC application form, is to be treated as correct for the purposes of promotion and retirement and any change or correction of the date of birth in case of commissioned officers cannot be considered after a lapse of two years from the date of Commission, MS Branch, with the approval of the then Chief of Army Staff decided that 10 May 1950 was being considered as the complainant's correct date of birth."

Silence speaks

Khare then wrote a letter dated 21 August 2006 to Singh, who then had taken over as GOC, 2 Corp, stating, "After due examination of the case and in light of the rule position, facts brought out and documents forwarded by you along with the DO letter, we regret to inform you that the case for change/correction of your date of birth cannot be processed at this belated state."

There is a lull in the correspondence for over a year before Singh brings up the issue of the correction of his date of birth. In doing so Singh appears to have resorted to unusual tactics. He approached the AG's branch to officially clarify his age. Accordingly, in October 2007 Lt Col BR Chharang, AAG MP 5 & 6 issued a "To Whomsoever it May Concern" letter that stated "As per the records maintained by this headquarters, IC 24173 W Lieutenant General Vijay Kumar Singh, AVSM, YSM, was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14 June 1970. The date of birth of the General Officer is 10 May 1951."

Having obtained confirmation from the AG’s branch of his date of birth, he forwarded the certificate to Lt Gen P.R. Gangadharan, who replaced Khare as Military Secretary, and in his covering letter of 10 December 2007 he refers to Khare’s letter of 21 August 2006 rejecting his request to correct his date of birth and states, “You are kindly requested to reconcile your records to reflect the correct date of birth. It is also requested that henceforth my correct date of birth as per AG records may please be reflected.”

By then Singh is being considered for promotion to the rank of Army Commander to be posted as GoC-in-C, Eastern Army Command. His letter asking for his date of birth to be reconciled is brought to the notice of Bimal Julka, the then Joint Secretary (G/Air), who wants to know the reasons behind it and sends a letter to the Military Secretary.

On 20 December 2007 Gangadharan, the Military Secretary, wrote back to Julka, giving the background of the case stating, “In view of the above, his official date of birth continues to be entered as 10 May 1950.” From the records it appears that Singh meanwhile independently pursued the issue with the AG’s branch because sometime in early January 2008, Maj General SR Ghosh, the then ADG MP & P, puts out a detailed note stating that all records available in his office indicate that his date of birth is 10 May 1951.

The MS branch though remained unconvinced. On 21 January 2008, Gangadharan wrote to Singh, repeating the points as to why a change in the date of birth cannot be considered and stated, “We are constrained to maintain your official date of birth as 10 May 1950 and the same may kindly be reflected in all your records/documents. The AG’s branch is being accordingly intimated to amend the records being maintained by them. Please acknowledge and confirm your acceptance.”

Singh’s adamant approach though seems to have miffed the MoD which began to question the suitability of promoting him. On 21 January 2008, Julka wrote to General Deepak Kapoor, the then Chief of Army Staff, (COAS) stating: “ It is an oddity that the officer has continued to stand by a date of birth, which is not officially recognised and thereby revealing an attitude apparently questionable and not reflective of the qualities expected from an Army Commander. In view of this, the question of suitability of Lt Gen VK Singh as Army Commander calls for a revisit.”

Singh appears to have been conveyed the news of the displeasure his memos were generating in the MoD and that it may affect his chances of a promotion. For he wrote to Gangadharan on 24 January 2008 stating that, “I am constrained to point out that your letter raises questions of my integrity and hence I would like to clarify a few issues.” He then goes on to state that he never sought a date of birth change and all he was asking for was a reconciliation of records.

He ended on a conciliatory note stating: “I have total belief in the system as also great faith in the sagacity and wisdom of the organisation I have been serving. Therefore, anything which is required to be done in the larger interests of the organisation may be undertaken by the HQ.”

The MoD though remained dissatisfied with such a vague commitment. Singh in his petition states that “after a telephonic discussion with the then COAS” he sent a signal to the MS Branch the same day stating “whatever decision taken in the organizational interest is acceptable to me.”

From the exchange of cables that follows it is apparent that Singh pushed the MoD to make some commitment to go in-depth into his request for a change in the date of birth before he sends a final letter to the Military Secretary that “in view of the above constraint and in accordance with the discussion of date, I will mention the date of birth as directed.” That acquiescence which seemingly led to his promotion as Army Commander again became the subject of a raging debate.

Part 5: The General gives his ‘word’

TRIBUNE ANALYSIS

ARMY CHIEF’S AGE ROW-PART 5A matter of Honour vs ProprietyThe General gives his ‘word’By Raj Chengappa
Editor-in-Chief

File photo of VK Singh Chief of Army Staff (right) with AK Antony, Union Defence Minister

Personal and Confidential:
From: Lt Gen VK Singh,
GoC, HQ 2 Corp,
To: Lt Gen PR Gangadharan,
Military Secretary, IHQ of MoD (Army)
Dated 31 Jan 2008.
Dear General,
1. Ref Para 5 and 6 of your letter
No 36808/DO/MS-8B dt 21 Jan 08.
2. Date as mentioned is accepted, Regards, Yours’ sincerely,
signed VK Singh.

THIS letter that General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of Army Staff, wrote four years ago is being regarded as an important piece of evidence by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) when the General’s writ petition challenging the Union of India order over the matter of his correct date of birth comes up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The letter came after a series of exchanges between the MoD, Gangadharan, the then Military Secretary (MS) and Singh, who was then a Lieutenant General and General Officer Commanding of the 2 Corps stationed in Ambala.

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5

Part 4 of The Tribune series on the messy row over the Army Chief’s age, talked of how Singh acquiesced under pressure to accept his date of birth as 10 May 1950 instead of 10 May 1951. This was after Bimal Julka, Joint Secretary (G/Air), MoD, in his letter of 21 January 2008, warned the Army HQ that MoD would reconsider its proposal to promote him as Army Commander if he persisted with “an attitude apparently questionable and not reflective of the qualities expected from any Army Commander.” This came after Singh reopened the issue of his date of birth in December 2007, having remained silent for more than a year after his promotion as Corps Commander.

It was in April 2006 that the MoD, when it received a proposal from Army HQ to promote Singh from a Major General to Lieutenant General, had for the first time pointed out that while his Annual Confidential Records (ACRs) showed 10 May 1951 as his date of birth, in another Army record it was entered as 10 May 1950. With the Army HQ promising the MoD that it would sort out the issue, Singh got his promotion and was posted to the 2 Corps in June 2006.

Soon after, Lt Gen Richard Khare, the then MS, in his letter of 21 August 2006 formally rejected his plea to have his date of birth corrected in the records citing mainly an MoD rule that no such change could be considered after a lapse of two years of an officer being commissioned in the armed forces.

However, with Singh raking up his date of birth issue again, Julka sent out a warning to Army HQ in January 2008 that the MoD would reconsider the proposal to promote him as Army Commander. That triggered a flurry of signals from Army HQ to Singh at Ambala to get him to give a written commitment that he accepted his date of birth as 10 May 1950.

First, PR Gangadharan, the MS, in a letter on 21 January 2008, formally rejected his plea to reconcile his date of birth in the MS record which had it as 10 May 1950 and the AG’s Branch which had it as 10 May 1951. Gangadharan’s six paragraph letter detailed the reasons as to why his request was being turned down with Para 5 stating “In view of the above, we are constrained to maintain your official date of birth as 10 May 1950 and the same may kindly be reflected in all your records/documents. The AG’s Branch is being accordingly intimated to amend the records being maintained by them.” And Para 6 asked Singh to, “Please acknowledge and confirm acceptance.”

After a telephonic conversation with Deepak Kapoor, the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS), who apparently briefed him about the consequences if he remained adamant about having his date of birth changed, Singh signaled on 24 January 2008, “ whatever decision taken in the org. interest is acceptable to me.”

Army HQ was not satisfied with such a vague commitment. So within hours of receiving Singh’s cable, Maj Gen K. Purshotam, the Deputy (MS)X, sent a terse cable stating, “response vide ibid sig. not in conformity with response asked for vide para 5 and 6 of letter dt 21 Jan 2008. If reply not recd by 1000 hrs on 25 Jan 08 action deemed appropriate will be taken.”

While referring to this cable, Singh in his statutory complaint to the MoD, stated that, “This was done as the COAS had ordered me during the course of his discussion to only say/write that I accept the date as desired by MS Branch. He did not want me to write that this acceptance was due to his order to me.”

The MS Branch though was busy defending Singh to prevent the MoD from rejecting his promotion. Gangadharan, the MS wrote to Julka on 25 January 2008 that, “the officer (VK Singh) did not have any malafide intention in continuing to write his date of birth as 10 May 1951.”

And that, “It is the considered view of this HQ that the officer is not blameworthy. He has all the attributes and credentials and deserves to be considered for the appointment of GOC-in-C/HQ as already recommended…this has the approval of COAS."

Julka then called for a detailed inquiry, “to find out the correct date of birth of the officer immediately in consultation with the AG’s Branch.” AG’s Branch came back with an ambiguous reply on 30 January 2008 for the first time indicating that within the AG directorates itself two sets of dates were being maintained. The note by Lt Gen K. R. Rao, DG (MP and PS) in the AG’s Branch, stated that while the Manpower Planning (MP) Directorate had Singh's date of birth as 10 May 1951, the Recruiting Directorate had it as 10 May 1950.

Forcing his hand

The AG's Branch ambiguous reply appears to have been communicated to Singh who wrote a letter on the same day now stating, “in accordance with the discussion of date, I will mention the date of birth as directed.” Gangadharan promptly wrote to Julka informing him that after, “a detailed examination in consultation with AG's branch” he gave reasons why 10 May 1950 should remain as the date of birth and ending that “the officer has now again affirmed that his date of birth would be indicated as 10 May 1950.” He reiterated that Singh had “no malafide intention.”

But apparently Julka in consultation with the then Defence Secretary Vijay Singh was unconvinced with the wordings of Singh's commitment to “mention the date of birth as directed.” That was communicated to Singh by Army HQ. He reluctantly wrote back on 31 January 2008, “Date as mentioned is accepted.” His promotion to the rank of Army Commander was then approved and he was appointed GOC-in-C, Eastern Command on 1 March 2008.

In his statutory complaint to the MoD of 26 August 2011, Singh gives the reasons why he finally acceded, stating, “In the highest traditions of the Indian army, I had no option but to comply with the orders and command of my superior officer as also assurances of my superior officer with the hope that he would bring the issue to a logical and ethical conclusion by accepting facts.”

This would not be the only time that he would put down in writing that he had accepted his date of birth as 1950. It would happen again just before he was appointed as Chief of Army Staff. But not before Singh would revive the issue of having his date of birth “reconciled” in the Army records.

Raising it again

On 1 July, 2008, he wrote a personal letter to Kapoor, stating, “I have mulled over the entire handling of the issue in great detail. I must also confess to my Chief that I have been greatly hurt and pained by the aspersions cast on my integrity and military reputation, which we all jealously guard.” He went into details as to why he thought the verification process with regard to his date of birth was faulty. He ended by stating, “I would humbly request my Chief that necessary justice must be done and the damage to my integrity must be taken care of.”

With Kapoor apparently not responding, on 25 December 2008, he wrote to Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the then Military Secretary, stating, “My dear Avadesh, …Please let me know the procedure and methodology followed by MS Branch for verification of date of birth as also how my date of my birth has been determined by MS Branch.”

On 15 January 2009, Prakash gave a detailed reply outlining the procedure and informing why his date had finally been determined as 10 May 1950. Singh was back with another letter on 11 February 2009 punching holes in Prakash’s argument. On 20 March 2009, Singh sent another letter to Prakash enclosing correspondence with the UPSC over correction of his date of birth and stating that his commission was provisional till he submitted his matriculation certificate.

Prakash’s reply of 13 April 2009 is to the point and states “that your commissioning was not provisional for any reason.” He then pointed out, “vied your letter of 31 January 2008, date of birth ie 10 May 1950 has been accepted by you. Therefore, this issue stands closed.”

Quest to become Chief

On August 20, 2009, the MS Branch issued a notice of retirement to Singh informing him that he would retire on 31 May 2010 on attaining the compulsory retirement age for Lieutenant Generals at 60. That age was calculated on the basis of his date of birth being 10 May 1950. MoD pointed out in its order of December 2011 that there is ‘no record to show that this notice was contested” by Singh after that.

By October, with Deepak Kapoor retiring on March 31, 2010, as the senior most ranking Lieutenant General, Singh is in the zone of consideration to succeed him as COAS. His bio-data is forwarded by the Deputy MS, Eastern Command, to the Army HQ on 23 October, 2009 indicating that his date of birth as 10 May, 1950. With MoD clearly upset with Singh raking up the age issue again there are indications that it may come in the way of him being appointed as the next Chief of Army Staff.

On 12 November 2009, Singh suo moto wrote to Deepak Kapoor, stating,

“My dear Chief,

1. I have learnt of some misgivings and doubts being raised on my commitment given on my date of birth as per your directions. You are well aware that I have not gone back on this commitment.

2. In July'08 when I wrote to you to seek justice and elaboration of MS Branch constraints, you had told me that this case is closed and will not be discussed. I have taken your directions in letter and spirit. My subsequent correspondence with the MS Branch has been on the verification process which I wanted to know for my own satisfaction. After the MS wrote saying that this function is of AG Branch, I have treated this issue as closed. I am sure you are well aware of these facts.

3. I once again reiterate my commitment to you stands and any doubt or misgivings need to be dispelled.

With best regards, Your sincerely, Signed VK Singh.”

This would be the second time that Singh would put on record that he regarded the date of birth “issue as closed” even averring that, “ that I have not gone back on this commitment. “ In his statutory complaint to the MoD of August 2011, Singh maintained that, “This letter in no way was an acceptance of any kind and was written as part of culmination of my correspondence with the MS Branch.” A stand he reiterated in his writ petition.

The MoD though in its order of 30 December 2011 rejecting Singh's statutory complaint, pointed out, “The commitment was given not only to the then COAS but separately to the Government through the Defence Secretary by way of a NOO (Not on Original) Endorsement.” Essentially it meant that he had marked a copy to the Defence Secretary without indicating it in his letter to Kapoor.

The MoD further pointed out, “ While processing the selection of the next COAS this ibid letter was placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and it was mentioned that the complainant had accepted his date of birth as 10 May 1950… the position now to be taken by complainant of distancing himself from this commitment is, therefore, not tenable.”

Three commitments

The MoD then observed, “Thus at three stages ie at the time of his appointment as Corps Commander in 2006, Army Commander in 2008 and COAS in 2009-10, Army HQ confirmed his date of birth as 10 May, 1950. The complainant had also accepted this as his date of birth in 2008 and 2009.”

If the MoD thought the matter would rest after Singh had given his “commitment” it would be mistaken. For not long after he was appointed as Chief of Army Staff on
31 March 2010, General Vijay Kumar Singh would bring the issue of his date of birth on centre-stage again.

Part 6: A matter of integrity

TRIBUNE ANALYSISArmy Chief’s Age Row-Part 6A matter of propriety vs integrityBy Raj Chengappa Editor-in-Chief

IF the Government believed that the issue regarding the date of birth of General Vijay Kumar Singh had been settled once he had been appointed as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) on 31 March 2010 it would soon be mistaken.

Singh would bring it up again raising serious questions about propriety apart from misuse of office. There was a feeling that the General should have distanced himself from investigations into his age issue because as COAS the two crucial wings involved, the Military Secretary’s (MS) Branch and the Adjutant General’s (AG) Branch now reported to him. But we are getting ahead of the chronology of events.

After Singh took over as COAS, there was a six month lull on the age issue before it was reopened in the most curious fashion. In October 2010, the Army’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) got a flurry of queries under the Right To Information (RTI) Act with regard to General V.K. Singh’s date of birth.

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5

The RTI route

On 11 October 2010, Lt Col Attar Singh living in Delhi requested information as to whether a Court of Inquiry had been conducted with regard to “the determination of the correct date of birth” of VK Singh, COAS. The MS Branch then directed the query to the AG’s branch stating, “it is the official custodian in respect of the information sought.” The AG’s Branch replied on 29 December 2010 that, “no Court of Inquiry has been conducted” on the subject.

Meanwhile, on 14 October 2010, Attar Singh had sent another RTI query, “seeking information as to the number of instances wherein the MS Branch had effected changes in the date of birth of the serving officers and ranks after two years of their commissioning. “The MS Branch replied on 17 November 2010 that there were five such cases where dates of birth were changed after the statutory period of two years. The point being that Singh’s case was not unusual.

Then on 28 October 2010, Dr Kamal Taori, a retired IAS officer, requested information regarding anomalies in Singh’s age with regard to his matriculation certificate and the Army records. Taori also wanted to know the age and date of birth of five serving General Officers of the army. There was another similar query by Ravikesh K Sinha, said to be a lawyer, on 12 January 2011.

In the interim, there occurs an apparently unrelated exchange of letters starting 25 November 2010 between the Indian Military Academy (IMA) and the National Defence Academy (NDA) from the Adjutant General’s (AG) Branch AAG Manpower Planning, MP, 6 (A) with regard to verification of the documents of Gentleman Cadet’s prior to being commissioned to the Army. General Singh cited these documents to bolster his arguments in his subsequent petitions to the Government on the age issue.

On 14 February 2011 in response to Taori’s RTI query, Major General Satish Nair, ADG MP, put out an unusually detailed letter to Inder Kumar, Legal Advice (Defence), LA (Def) Ministry of Law and Justice, that concluded, “The documents held with the AG’s Branch would lead only to one conclusion that the date of birth in respect of the officer is… 10 May 1951.”

Nair then stated, “Before reply to the RTI query to the applicant is given, advice of the LA (Defence) is requested on the above facts and circumstances on the issue whether the date of birth may be informed to the said application as 10 May 1951.”

Startlingly, on such a significant matter, Inder Kumar, replies to Nair’s letter on the same day i.e. 14 February 2011. It is an extremely detailed reply containing even Supreme Court judgments on the matter. Kumar’s opinion concluded: “We are of the view that the DOB recorded in the High School Certificate is having a greater evidentiary value. The PIO may accordingly give a reply to the applicant holding the DOB (Date of Birth) as 10 May 1951.”

On 23 February, 2011 an innocuous reply is sent to Taori by Brigadier A.K. Tyagi of the RTI Section giving an annexure that shows that the date of birth of General Singh as per AG records is 10 May 1951 and that of his High School Certificate is also 10 May 1951. Similar information is provided for five other general officers that the RTI petitioner had asked for.

On 25 February 2011, Nair, the ADG, MP, then wrote to Deputy MS (X) ordering that, “ The following amendment be made in the records of the COAS by the MS branch with info to all concerned that, “For: 10 May 1950; Read: 10 May 1951. The above amendment is in accordance with advice of LA (Def) and accepted on file by the Ministry of Law.”

MS doesn’t play ball

There is no immediate reply from the MS Branch. Meanwhile, Brigadier Tyagi writes another letter to Taori, the RTI applicant, on 8 March 2011 offering “additional information” and stating, “In this connection the Date of Birth as record in the HSC (Rajasthan Board) as well other documents of IC 24173 Gen VK Singh COAS is 10 May 1951. There are no averments in this regard. However, there was an omission in one Branch and as advised by LA (Def), Ministry of Law and Justice, necessary correction is being made to correct the omission.”

MoD called in

The MS Branch though does not cooperate with the AG Branch and wanted MoD clearance to be obtained on such a significant issue. R. Chandrashekaran, the Deputy MS, in his letter of 16 March 2011 to Nair, the ADG MP, stated, “As per policy…changes in the date of birth in respect of Commissioned Officers are required to be accepted by the Competent Authority in the MoD. It is requested that requisite approval of the Competent Authority to the acceptance of the change in the instant case be obtained and intimated to this Branch to enable relevant records being amended accordingly.”

Nair of AG’s Branch is back with a detailed reply on 21 March 2011, clarifying that, “the subject case does not pertain to request for change in the date of birth of the said officer but only a correct after a mistake has come to light.” He claimed that the “MoD had been informed about the same” and “ in light of the facts stated above you may initiate necessary action at your end to correct the anomaly of incorrect entry of the date of birth of the said officer in your records.”

Adding to the pressure on the MS Branch is a reply sent by M.D. Paliath, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers), CDA, to the AG’s Branch on 30 March 2011 referring to the RTI query and stating that its records from the time of VK Singh’s commissioning show the date of birth as 10 May 1951.

MoD gets tough

The MoD was alerted of the matter when the AG’s branch sent a communication to its Establishment Branch and clearly looked upon it as transgression of accepted procedure. Subhash Chandra, Joint Secretary (G and Air), in his letter of 29 March 2011 to the Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar, stated, “It must be pointed out that the RTI applicant has sought information. The AG has clearly gone beyond the furnishing of information to getting an issue investigated by the LA( Def), Ministry of Law and proceeding to rectify an omission by another branch. This is most irregular as it involves the date of birth of the COAS and has implication for his tenure.”

In the letter Chandra pointed out that Singh at the time of the selection of COAS had accepted his date of birth as 10 May 1950. He stated: “Thus Gen VK Singh’s date of birth is a settled matter as far as the Government is concerned. It is surprising that the AG Branch has not taken note of these developments which are in its knowledge… Instead of furnishing facts to the applicant, the AG Branch has empowered itself to change the official date of birth of the COAS as 10 May 1951 on the basis of an RTI application.”

On 4 April 2011, the MoD formally sought clarifications from the Army HQ, asking it four telling questions: 1) what is the policy for effecting such corrections and who is the Competent Authority 2). Who approved the correction of dates 3). What was the legal issue referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice? A copy of the reference made to the LA (Def) may be furnished 4). Why was the issue not routed through the Ministry of Defence as per norms?

AG dodges query

To which the AG Branch in its reply of 18 April 2011, claimed that as “it is the custodian of all such records of date of birth, the said Branch is competent to convey to any other Branch in case any correction in error is required.” But on the question as to why it bypassed the MoD it blandly stated, “It is our understanding that the office of LA (Def) is an integral part of the MoD and hence clarifications, owing to a legal nature, was referred to it; this is a normal practice in all legal matters related to other cases also. If, however, there are instructions to the contrary the same may please be intimated for our information and necessary action.”

Meanwhile, Singh was apparently drumming up support for his case even approaching the Prime Minister’s Office. On 21 April 2011, Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar received an unsigned petition from VK Singh that had been submitted to TKA Nair, the then Principal Secretary to the PM, enclosing all the documents of his case including the LA (Def) advice on the matter.

As the matter had turned extremely serious, Chandra in his letter to Pradeep Kumar, Defence Secretary on May 6, 2011, pointed out, “The amendment of the date as a ‘technical’ correction of an error at this stage by the AG Branch of AHQ on the basis of an RTI application in direct consultation with the Law Ministry without bringing the entire facts to the latter’s notice has given rise to a situation where the date of birth is effectively getting changed to 10 May 1951 without the officer himself applying for a change. This issue has implications on the tenure of the officer concerned and the organisation. It also has implications of setting a precedent that may override extant procedures.”

Antony acts

Chandra recommended getting the opinion of the Attorney General of India Goolam Vahanvati on the issue. Kumar agreed with Chandra and in his note of 7 May 2011 to Defence Minister AK Antony on the file stated “A decision regarding amendment in the date of birth of the COAS will have implications on the succession plan on the Army. The possibility of those affected by the decision seeking redressal in the court of law cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is essential that whatever decision the Government takes in this sensitive matter should be defendable in a court of law.” Antony gave his approval on 9 May 2011 and the matter was referred to Vahanvati.

On 16 May 2011, Vahanvati in his 22 page reply to the MoD got into great detail with case studies that have been brought out in the previous parts of the series by The Tribune. He takes a serious view of the transgressions by the AG’s Branch using an RTI query to change Singh’s date of birth and states, “I find the procedure which was adopted completely untenable in law and to put it mildly, strange. Both on facts and in substance the reply to the queries on the RTI application make disturbing reading.”

Vahanvati then came down strongly on Army HQ stating: “In my opinion… there is a clear case of estoppels and waiver and this position in law is well settled.” The charge of estoppels is serious as, by dictionary definition it is ‘a legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to the party’s previous conduct, allegation or denial.’ Vahanvati concludes, “My answer to the query is that the amendment of the date of birth is not legally tenable and the issue cannot be reopened at this stage on any basis whatsoever.”

Raising doubts

Singh though is not waiting for Vahanvati’s verdict. On 12 May 2011, he gives a detailed petition to Defence Minister Antony, “seeking justice from the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri based on facts and records,” as he is known for his “judicious, dispassionate, unbiased and kind nature.” He charges the MoD of trying to “confuse the entire issue” as a “change in his date of birth” when it was one of “reconciliation of wrong records.”

Raising doubts over the decision of the MoD to refer it to Attonery General Vahanvati, Singh stated that the “ whole process smacks of prejudice and malice as a mere legal advice unilaterally obtained cannot be enough to change the date of birth followed for 41 years.” Apart from charging the MoD of sending “tailor-made” queries to ensure his plea is rejected he startles the MoD by stating that he is attaching “advice obtained by my well wishers from two former Chief Justices of India for your perusal.”

Odd actions

The MoD waits for Vahanvati to give his opinion before taking up VK Singh’s petition to Antony. It is clearly upset with Singh asking for opinion from two former Chief Justices of India without consulting it. Joint Secretary Chandra in his note of 1 June 2011 to the Defence Secretary Kumar pointed out, “It is odd that the Gen Singh and the then DG MP&PS Lt Gen VK Chaturvedi have in a personal matter of the COAS chosen to make a reference to two former Chief Justices of India. Justice G.B. Patnaik has commented that he is unable to comment on the Attorney General’s opinion as he has not seen it whereas Justice J.S. Verma had remarked that while he has perused the opinion furnished by the LA (Def) to the AG’s Branch, it is true that the Attorney General has taken a different view, it is likely the query for his opinion may not be framed correctly.”

Chandra recommended that since two former CJI’s have given their opinion they should get another opinion from Vahanvati. Kumar concurred with Chandra and in a note on 7 June 2011 requested Antony to clear the proposal to get a second opinion from Vahanvati which he does on 8 June 2011.

Out of the loop

Vahanvati in his second opinion dated 21 June 2011 pointed out, “The reference by the AG Branch to Justice Verma directly is highly unusual since the proper and well laid down procedures have not been followed. The Ministry of Defence as well as the Law Ministry was kept out of the loop and excluded completely.”

He then takes on the query raised to Justice Patnaik by Singh’s “well-wishers” that whether “the Central Government could rely on an opinion of the Attorney General of India which was based on tailor made queries.” To make his point Vahanvati quoted from the Union Law Secretary’s note dated 9 June 2011 in which he stated, “ The opinion given by the LA (Def) which has been countersigned by the Additional Secretary cannot be treated as a legal opinion for the purpose of change of date of birth.”

The Law Secretary’s note also stated that the reference made by the AG’s branch to the LA (Def) “ did not have any comments or views of the MoD who are the concerned authority for ordering any change in the date of birth of the concerned officer.” The note further observed, “Moreover such matters should have been placed for consideration at the highest level in this Ministry. I may point out that it is the consistent practice in this Department that all important matters especially in relation to very senior officers are invariably shown to the Law Secretary and Law Minister. The reply of the Legal Adviser (Defence) may be abrogated for these reasons.”

Vahanvati dismisses VK Singh’s suggestions that the queries to him by the MoD were “tailor-made” stating, “to impute motives to the MoD is not only unwarranted but in bad taste.” He ended by stating that, “taking all aspects into consideration I see no reason to revise my opinion.”

A month later, based on Vahanvati’s advice and having sought the concurrence of the Defence Minister, Joint Secretary Chandra sends an office memorandum on 21 July 2011 to Chief of Army Staff (COAS) VK Singh, the Adjutant General (AG) and the Military Secretary (MS) that declares the AG’s note of February 25, 2011 as, “unauthorised and illegal.”

Null and void

Chandra’s memo then stated, “The Central Government therefore declares order No 12918/RTI/MP-6(a) dated February 25, 2011 directing to amend the date of birth of Gen VK Singh (IC-24173), COAS to read as 10 May 1951 instead of 10 May 1950 as recorded, as null and void and non est. The officer’s official date will continue to be maintained as 10 May 1950 (Tenth May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty).” This was then issued as a formal Government Order on 22 July 2011.

On 26 August 2011, General Vijay Kumar Singh became the first Chief of Army Staff, to file a statutory complaint with the Union Defence Minister AK Antony seeking redressal of his age issue. On 30 December 2011, the MoD rejected his statutory complaint “by order and in the name of the President,” for reasons discussed in The Tribune series. The order stated, “His officially recognised date of birth will continue to remain 10 May 1950. Accordingly there are no grounds for interfering with the impugned Official Memorandum dated July 21, 2011 and the Government order dated July 22, 2011.”

Over to Supreme Court

When the Government had admitted Singh’s statutory complaint it had held in abeyance its July 22, 2011 Order that his date of birth remain as 10 May 1950 and all the Army branches to conform its records with it. But with its 30 December 2011 order, the hold was lifted. On 23 January 2012, the MoD sent a note to the AG ordering it to reconcile its records. (see front page report)

Meanwhile, on 16 January 2012, in another unprecedented step by a Chief of Army Staff, Singh filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Government’s order. The first hearing is fixed for February 3, 2012. The highest court of the land will now give its verdict on one of the most contentious and messiest issues concerning the Army Chief that India has seen since Independence.

(Concluded)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120130/main3.htm