Indian Navy: Personnel and service matters
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Internal enquiries
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
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.“
1998
The Times of India, Mar 29, 2012
Is Admiral Bhagwat saga playing out again?
On December 30, 1998, shortly after midday a special aircraft arrived at the naval base in Kochi, and almost around the same time the then defence minister George Fernandes was on line with vice admiral Sushil Kumar, the then commander-in-chief of Southern Naval Command. Fernandes asked Kumar to collect a letter carried by the pilot and report to Delhi by 6pm the same day. “The President is pleased to promote you to the rank of admiral and appoint you in command of the Indian Navy as chief of the Naval Staff, with effect from PM 30 December, 1998,’’ it said. Almost simultaneously, the then Navy Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was served another order: “The President has withdrawn his pleasure for your continuation in the Indian Navy for lack of confidence in you as the chief of the Naval Staff, with effect from PM 30 December, 1998.” It drew the curtains on a tumultuous standoff between Admiral Bhagwat and the defence ministry that was going on for several weeks. For many veterans and serving officers, the present developments surrounding Army chief Gen V K Singh have brought back memories of that unique event in Independent India: the sacking of a military chief. The developments over past few days have painted the government into a corner over how to deal with the Army chief, who first dragged the government to the Supreme Court over the age issue, and now has repeatedly embarrassed the government over bribery claims and by leaking his letter to the PM. The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday witnessed an unusual political consensus, and concern about the leak of the detailed letter written by General Singh to the PM expressing concern about the Army’s preparedness. While there are several parallels between 1998 and now, there is something else that stands out in case of General Singh.
Defence minister A K Antony received overwhelming support from political parties for any possible action to be taken against the Army chief. Some opposition members took care to tell the ruling front MPs on Wednesday that they wouldn’t be doing what the Congress and Left did to them when Admiral Bhagwat was sacked. In 1999, when the BJP-led NDA government sacked Bhagwat, Congress and Left parties had opposed the sacking. The sacking of Bhagwat came about after weeks of standoff between the two sides senior level postings, but soon spread to operational matters and even strategic outlook. The MoD had launched scathing and repeated attacks on Bhagwat, who retaliated in his inimitable way. However, the government soon ran out of patience, and sacked the Admiral, and made history.
The Times of India, Nov 18, 2013
Rajat Pandit
India's maritime hawk completes 25 years of yeomen service
The world’s largest and fastest turboprop aircraft, aptly named the "Albatross" or the "Mighty Bird", the TU-142M planes first joined the INAS 312 maritime reconnaissance squadron from Russia in 1988. NEW DELHI: Quietly keeping a hawk-eye on hostile warships, submarines, pirates and other inimical forces in the wide Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Tupolev-142M aircraft have now clocked 25 years of operations in the Navy without a single accident.
The world's largest and fastest turboprop aircraft, aptly named the "Albatross" or the "Mighty Bird", the TU-142M planes first joined the INAS 312 maritime reconnaissance squadron from Russia in 1988.
On Monday, the TU-142M's silver jubilee was celebrated at naval air station INS Rajali in Arakkonam in Tamil Nadu, with Eastern Naval Command chief Vice admiral Anil Chopra reviewing the flypast and parad.
Though the seven fuel-guzzling TU-142M aircraft in the squadron have clearly aged, the Navy says they are still "effective force-multipliers" that are always in the "forefront" of all maritime operations.
"TU-142Ms were the first true LRMR (long-range, maritime reconnaissance) patrol aircraft of the Navy. They have performed yeomen service over the years. Having undergone overhauls and life-extensions in Russia, we plan to keep them in service till at least 2018," said an officer.
With a 50-metre wing-span and a range of over 12,000 km, the TU-142M has a speed of around 850 kmph. "They also have the highest flying altitude among turboprops, with an operational ceiling of over 13,000 metre," he said.
Apart from snooping, the TU-142Ms also have potent anti-submarine and electronic warfare capabilities. "They have a 10-member crew, fitted as they are with lot of sensors. They can also carry at least five torpedoes as well as freefall bombs and depth charges," he said.
The TU-142Ms will gradually be replaced by the dozen P-8I aircraft India is buying from the US for around $3.5 billion. Under the first $2.1 billion contract inked with Boeing in January 2009, the second of the eight contracted P-8I touched down at INS Rajali earlier this month. "All eight will be delivered by 2015," said another officer.
Armed with deadly Harpoon Block-II missiles, MK-54 lightweight torpedoes, rockets and depth charges, the radar-packed P-8I aircraft will be India's "intelligent hawk-eyes" over the IOR that is increasingly getting militarized.
China in particular has stepped up its submarine activity in the IOR as well as systematically forged extensive maritime linkages with eastern Africa, Seychelles, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan, among others.
With a maximum speed of 907 kmph and an operating range of over 1,200 nautical miles, "with four hours on station", the P-8Is will be able to detect "threats" — and neutralize them if required — far before they come anywhere near Indian shores.
Much like the TU-142Ms, the P-8Is will work in conjunction with medium-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and Israeli Searcher-II and Heron UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) to establish an effective three-tier surveillance grid in IOR.
Apart from the need to take care of its primary area of strategic interest stretching from Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait, India also has a vast 5,422-km coastline, 1,197 islands and 2.01 million sq km of Exclusive Economic Zone to guard against all threats. "The P-8Is will help in this," said the officer.
The Times of India, Sep 05 2015
Give permanent jobs to naval women: Delhi HC
Women in services are here to stay and “sexist bias or service bias“ can't be allowed to block their progress, the Delhi high court observed on Friday , allowing permanent commission for female naval officers. Putting officers from the navy at par with those from Army and Air Force who already have been granted permanent commission opportunities the HC allowed a bunch of pleas seeking permanent commission for them in the force, saying “sexist bias and service bias“ would not be allowed to block progress of women.
Reminding the Central government and other opponents of the scheme that “women are here to stay“ the court allowed their petitions.It noted that women today “work shoulder to shoulder“ with their male counterparts. Questioning the reluctance of the government, the court made it clear it would “frown upon any endeavour to restrain the progress of women“.
It quoted an Urdu poet Majaz Lakhnavi “Tere maathe pe yeh aanchal bahut hi khoob hai lekin, tu is aanchal se ik parcham bana leti to acha tha“ to stress that women should be granted full opportunities to make their mark in every profession. While the Army and Air Force allow permanent commission for women, the Navy has limited women officers only to short service commission of 14 years. A bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Najmi Waziri also allowed the women naval officers' plea seeking retirement benefits like pension.Women naval officers were not eligible for pension as it required 20 years of service.
The order came on the plea of several naval women officers, both retired and serving, from the logistics, education and air traffic control departments of the Navy . The women naval officers in their pleas in the high court had sought similar rights as their counterparts in the other two wings of the armed forces.
They also alleged gender discrimination, saying while women officers were only entitled to short service commission, men were entitled to both short service as well as permanent commissions.Pointing out that women aren't allowed on ships under the existing rules, they also face discrimination in promotion, the women had urged HC to intervene.
In 2010, women in the army and the Air Force were allowed permanent commission by the high court.
