Defence sources said Parrikar has sought all documents and details related to the issue. General Suhag made the allegations in an affidavit filed by him in his personal capacity while responding to a petition moved by Lieutenant General (Retd) Ravi Dastane who had alleged ‘favouritism’ during his selection as the Army Commander.

Army sources maintained that General Suhag only ‘resubmitted’ the affidavit he had filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal as the matter has come before the Supreme Court.

"The AFT had rejected the claims of the complainant after which the complainant filed a case in the Supreme Court. When General Suhag first filed the affidavit in 2012, neither was he the Army chief and nor was Singh a Minister," an army source said.

General Suhag in his affidavit said, "I was sought to be victimised by the then COAS with the sole purpose of denying promotion to the appointment of Army Commander. False, baseless and imaginary allegations of lapses were leveled against me in the show cause notice (of May 19, 2012).

"Despite their being no evidence against me at the Court of Inquiry, the show cause notice was issued malafidely," he said, adding that ‘no material whatsoever of attendant circumstances was provided to me. The show cause notice issued, beside suffering from vagueness, was premeditated and also against the principles of natural justice’.

In 2012, General Suhag was placed under a discipline and vigilance (DV) ban by Singh, the then Army chief, for his alleged ‘failure of command and control’ after a Court of Inquiry was ordered into an operation carried out in Jorhat, Assam, on the night of December 20-21, 2011 by the 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. The army chief, who was the then General Officer Commanding of the unit, said the imposition of DV ban on him and issuance of a show cause notice by the then COAS ‘was illegal and premeditated’.

"It is thus established that I was victimized for extraneous reasons by the then COAS and hence the illegal imposition of DV ban by the then COAS could not be made the basis by the appellant to challenge my appointment as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command. In fact, it is the answering respondent who is the victim and not the appellant, as is sought to be made by him," he said.

Latest News from India News Desk