What the Defence ministry probe report into Adarsh scam says on role of top military officers
GEN. N.C. VIJ: “Was fully conversant with the case, as he himself was an allottee of a flat and a beneficiary. He appears to have provided a protective umbrella to the efforts of the MG&G Area and Mumbai Sub Area to facilitate the alienation of the land in question held in occupation of the LMA to the ACHS. At no stage did he raise any questions on the matter, nor did he flag any security concerns during the annual security review as Army Commander or otherwise”.
“The entire hierarchy would be acutely aware that the COAS himself had a vested interest in the matter. This would have facilitated the above actions”
GEN. DEEPAK KAPOOR: “Was an allottee of a flat and a beneficiary of the ACHS case. While not directly connected with the case, it can be said in hindsight that Gen Kapoor was perhaps not well advised in accepting membership of the ACHS, and he does not seem to have adequately appreciated the full implications of his doing so. An army chief is expected to maintain the highest standards of rectitude and correct behaviour and is a role model for all the officers in the service”.
GEN. G.S. SIHOTA: “The Army Commander provided cover and protection to the efforts of the GOCs to facilitate the alienation of the land. Knowingly false information was given by Command HQ for Reply to a Parliament Question in December 2003, stating that the land in question was not and had “never been” under the occupation of the army authorities. There was no consideration of the future security implications of the land transfer to a high-rise building of a cooperative housing society”.
GEN. SHANTANU CHOUDHARY: “Member of the Society and a beneficiary. He appears to have been an active member and is a leading defender of ACHS today; the SLP in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court orders against Adarsh has been filed by him. As an Adarsh beneficiary, he had a vested interest and would be aware and supportive of these actions in favour of ACHS. His support to ACHS along with that of the Chief would have set a very undesirable example to subordinate officers, and would undoubtedly have discouraged conscientious officers who may have tried to defend public interest”.
VICE-ADMIRAL MADANJIT SINGH: “He had no formal role in the case. However, Patil Commission has observed that he was ineligible to become a member as he gave a wrong undertaking that he did not own any house in Mumbai , a fact that he admitted before the Commission. This action of his does not meet the high standards of rectitude expected of an officer of his rank”