Revision as of 16:13, 21 July 2015

Internal enquiries

The Times of India

Armed Forces Tribunal: orders and challenges

Apr 08 2015

NEITHER COURT, NOR MARTIAL - Questions swirl over Navy's internal inquiries

Josy Joseph

Question to sailor Rakesh Kumar: Who are the officers for whom special requests were made?

Answer: CNS (chief of naval staff), VCNS (vice chief of naval staff), DCNS (deputy chief of naval staff), COL (chief of logistics), COP (chief of personnel), Cmdr OP Kaura.

Question to Commander Girraj: Were you in the knowledge of these special requests being catered from Store Victualling Yard?

Answer: Yes sir, this was briefed to me by my predecessor and I continued to follow it.

In the normal legal course, such answers, as given to a naval Board of Inquiry (BoI) would have resulted in summons to the alleged beneficiaries. But not in Indian Navy . It dismissed them as “wild allegations“ and punished the sailor who allegedly took bribe from a contractor, and a couple of middle-ranking officers who were his supervisors.

Such selective implementation of justice is not an exception in the Navy but widespread, a TOI investigation has found.

According to proceedings of several BoIs, some recent orders of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Supreme Court and several sources, the BoIs of Navy , and court-martials based on them, often use skewed and legally unsound processes to arrive at conclusions. In the process careers, reputations and even family lives of many middle rung officers and sailors have been ruined. Most of them have gone silent, struggling to rebuild their lives.

In cases where affected personnel fought back, Navy's decisions have been overturned.In just the last few months, the AFT has ordered the navy to take back two sacked commanders. The Supreme Court threw out Navy's challenge to one of those tribunal orders.

Last summer, a BoI was ordered after sailor Rakesh Kumar posted with INS India, which provides administrative and logistics support to the Naval headquarters, admitted to taking bribe from a meat supplier, after accounting irregularities emerged. During questioning, the sailor admitted that discrepancy was not just limited to meat procurement, but also in vegetables and fruits. When questioned, he said it was “made to cater for the special requests of VIPs“.

Kumar named most of the Navy brass, including then chief Admiral DK Joshi, then vice chief and present navy chief Admiral Robin K Dhowan, then deputy chief and present eastern command chief Vice Admiral Satish Soni, and many other senior officers.

The BoI immediately turned to Kumar's superior Commander Girraj, who admitted to the manipulation.

The BoI, headed by Captain Sriram Amur, did not summon, or record statements, of any of the senior officers named as the beneficiaries of the manipulation. More over, the BoI report was submitted to chief of personnel Vice Admiral P Murugesan, one of the alleged beneficiaries of the procurement system that was under probe.

Asked why the BoI did not probe the alleged beneficiaries, the Navy in a written response to TOI said: “The indicted individuals had admitted to their wrongdoings. However, the said indicted individuals raised wild allegations on other senior officers and cast baseless aspersions in an attempt to cover up their own misdemeanours.“ The statement said: “Having examined the case in its entirety , the BoI may not have felt the necessity to summon any other witnesses.“

Internal justice questioned

The Times of India

Apr 09 2015

Josy Joseph

NEITHER COURT, NOR MARTIAL - Navy's arbitrary internal justice system ruins lives

Procurement of vegetables and meat to breach of security, many cases are swept by the arbitrariness of the justice dispensation system in Indian Navy , according to several Board of Inquiry (BoI) reports accessed by TOI and recent orders of the Supreme Court and Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

In January 2014, a commodore in Kochi-based southern naval command was reported by another officer for “stealing the affections“ of his wife, though the two were divorced three months earlier. Most of the BoI findings were based on the unilateral confessions of the accused officer who was discharged from service with a 25% cut in his pension.“Officers have been sacked in the past too for affairs, but you don't arbitrarily slash someone's pension,“ one of the officers said.

TOI met several officers who have been at the receiving end of such inquiries, including many who are now struggling to settle down in civil life. In many cases, `stealing the affections of a fellow officer's wife' was the main allegation to mar careers and reputations.

In 2011, Navy constituted a BoI in Mumbai against four officers, including Commander Kalyan Kumar, accusing them of breaching information security , leaking ship movement details and unauthorized contact with foreign nationals. Based on its findings, the Navy chief decided against court-martial and invoked his authority to dismiss three of the officers, while letting off the fourth one.

Kumar appealed in AFT and SC and got his dismissal quashed. The AFT's Mumbai bench pointed out that the officer who was let off by the Navy with a warning was the one who, in fact, exchanged emails with others on the ship's sailing schedule and carried official data in unauthorised pen drive. “In spite of that, he was awarded only severe displeasure for a period of five years,“ the AFT observed.

The SC upheld the AFT order and Kumar is now awaiting orders to rejoin the Navy . One of his batch-mates told TOI: “They practically made him an outcast overnight, and he couldn't find a job for two years. He sent his daughter to a boarding school to keep her away from the social stigma that his family went through. Worse, he sold his only house to sustain his family and pay for the legal expenses.“

The AFT has recently also ordered the Navy to take back another officer, Commander RV Desai, who was posted on aircraft carrier INS Viraat when he was sacked in April 2013. He was accused of sending lewd messages to women.

According to several sources TOI spoke to, the latest instance of `skewed' naval justice administration is the inquiry into the February 26, 2014 accident aboard INS Sindhuratna, when smoke engulfed sailors' cabin. Two officers were killed and several others injured, prompting then Navy chief Admiral DK Joshi to resign taking responsibility for repeated accidents.

The BoI into the accident has held seven officers guilty.But sources pointed out serious conflict of interest in the case of most BoI members, including its president Rear Admiral SV Bhokare. As the `flag officersubmarines', Bhokare was directly responsible for evaluating submarines after refitmodernization etc. Sindhuratna had just been out in the sea after an `extended short refit' was completed in December 2013.“He should have been a witness, and here he was presiding over the inquiry ,“ said a senior officer.

The second member of the Sindhuratna inquiry was directly reporting to Bhokare while the third one was from the naval dockyard where the submarine had undergone refits.

Asked about the conflict of interest, a written statement from the Navy said: “In case incidents relate to ship submarine aircraft, the individuals with requisite specialised knowledge, service experience and appropriate seniority are nominated for such inquiries. The proceedings of BoIs are thereafter thoroughly examined by professionals and legal experts at Command and HQ, MoD (Navy) level, prior approval by appropriate authority . The causative analysis undertaken is then disseminated panNavy for implementation.“

The Navy went on to say , “In the case of Sindhuratna also, due to the gravity of the incident, officers of appropriate rank, seniority and professional experience were appointed to thoroughly investigate the case. The BoI proceedings were examined as per the laid down procedures and no conflict of interest was found.“