Army Medical Corps Lieutenant Colonel Cashiered, Sentenced to One-Year RI in Jammu Hospital Procurement Case

Jammu: A Summary General Court Martial has cashiered a Lieutenant Colonel of the Army Medical Corps and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment after holding him guilty of financial misappropriation and administrative lapses linked to the procurement of medical supplies for 166 Military Hospital in Jammu.

The officer faced 14 charges under Sections 52(a), 52(f) and 63 of the Army Act, covering allegations of false statements, intent to defraud and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The court found him guilty on five counts. The trial concluded on August 28, 2026, in the Nagrota area near Jammu.

The verdict, however, is not the end of the matter. The findings and sentence are still subject to confirmation by the competent authority, and proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal mean the punishment cannot be treated as finally implemented at this stage.

According to the chargesheet, the Lieutenant Colonel served as the indenting officer for medical supplies at 166 Military Hospital during 2018 and 2019. He was also involved in technical and financial board proceedings connected with procurement.

The prosecution alleged that, while carrying out these duties, he repeatedly projected urgent requirements for medical stores worth about Rs 3 crore in violation of provisions of the Defence Procurement Manual, 2009. He was also accused of improperly selecting and rejecting vendors, allegedly causing undue benefit to certain parties.

The hospital’s overall allocation for medical supplies during the two-year period covered by the chargesheet was reported to be around Rs 30 crore.

Among the other allegations was the procurement of fixed-dose and multi-salt combination medicines in unusually large quantities. The prosecution said these medicines were bought on a non-approved or special procurement basis rather than through the normal government medical supply chain.

The case also turned on the selection of vendors and the manner in which the procurement process was handled. The prosecution alleged that expensive medicines were recommended for purchase after two vendors were selected through a restricted tendering process. Questions were also raised about the officer’s participation at different stages of procurement, including technical evaluation and financial proceedings.

Reports on the court-martial proceedings said 32 witnesses were examined during the trial. The Lieutenant Colonel was represented by multiple defence counsel.

The chargesheet further alleged that the officer learnt that his signatures had been forged on certain technical board documents but did not report the alleged forgery to his superior authorities.

He pleaded not guilty. His defence maintained that his actions were bona fide and argued that some of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were forged and did not bear his genuine signatures.

The officer had also approached the Armed Forces Tribunal before the disciplinary proceedings concluded. The AFT’s Principal Bench declined to stay the court-martial, but directed that no final decision arising from the proceedings should be implemented until further orders.

That direction remains relevant after the SGCM verdict. The punishment awarded by the military court must still go through the statutory confirmation process, and any directions of the Armed Forces Tribunal will have to be complied with before implementation.

The procurement controversy traces back to complaints that surfaced in 2021-22. A Court of Inquiry, headed by a Major General with two Brigadiers as members, examined allegations of large-scale irregularities in the local purchase of medicines using government funds.

Following that inquiry, three Army personnel — the Major General who had served as Commandant of the military hospital, the Lieutenant Colonel involved in procurement and a Junior Commissioned Officer — were reportedly attached for disciplinary proceedings.

The latest conviction is part of the same procurement episode in which the hospital’s former Commandant, a Major General of the Army Medical Corps, was separately tried by a Summary General Court Martial.

In July 2026, the Major General was found guilty on 16 of 18 charges related to alleged irregularities and misappropriation in the procurement of medical supplies worth about Rs 11 crore during his tenure as Commandant of 166 Military Hospital between August 2018 and January 2020.

He was also awarded cashiering from service and one year’s rigorous imprisonment. That sentence, too, remains subject to the military confirmation process and applicable directions of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The allegations in the Major General’s case concerned purchases of medicines, including tablets, gels and ointments, as well as dressings and medical equipment that were allegedly excessive in quantity or cost. The prosecution also alleged that incorrect information had been included in procurement certification documents in violation of the Defence Procurement Manual.

Proceedings against a Junior Commissioned Officer linked to the procurement case have also reportedly been underway separately.

Cashiering is one of the most serious punishments available to a court martial against a commissioned officer. It amounts to punitive dismissal from military service and is distinct from normal retirement or administrative release from the Armed Forces.

The additional sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment would come into effect only after confirmation and subject to the outcome of any legal proceedings or tribunal orders affecting implementation of the punishment.

166 Military Hospital is a key Army medical establishment serving personnel in the Jammu region. Local procurement arrangements allow military hospitals to buy medicines and other essential medical stores when requirements cannot be met adequately or quickly through the central supply system.

Such spending is subject to prescribed procurement procedures designed to ensure that requirements are genuine, competitive methods are followed where applicable and government funds are properly accounted for.

The cases arising from the hospital’s 2018-20 procurement cycle are notable because disciplinary proceedings have reached senior levels of the Army Medical Corps, including a Major General who commanded the hospital and a Lieutenant Colonel directly involved in procurement.

For now, though, neither punishment can be treated as finally executed. Further steps will depend on confirmation by the competent military authorities and compliance with the directions issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal.