M P VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined Indian Navy as Air Artificer Sailor in November, 1968 and was commissioned as an officer on 1. 4. 1981. He superannuated on 30. 09. 2000. Prior to superannuation he was posted as Deputy Controller of procurement (Central Purchase/ Direct Purchase) in the Material Organization, mumbai. By virtue of an agreement entered into by him with the Central government, he was re-employed in the Indian Navy soon after his retirement i. e. , w. e. f. 01. 10. 2000 which appointment continued till 21. 5. 2004 During this period also, he was posted as Deputy Controller of Procurement in Ghatkopar mumbai and as such he was responsible for various procurement activities on behalf of Navy.

(2.) IN or around June 2003 Intelligence inputs were received by the Navy authorities about extortion of illegal gratification by some Naval officers from the vendors for giving them contracts for supply of defence equipments. On being satisfied that the petitioner was involved in such practices his house was raided, from where a sum of Rs. 6,91,700/- was recovered hidden in a servant quarter. A diary maintained by the petitioner in his own handwriting as confirmed by the handwriting expert was also recovered from his brief case, which contained details about the receipt of money from the vendors so obliged. Thus the petitioner was attached with the Commanding Officer, INS ANGRE for disciplinary purposes and was sent for trial on 17 charges for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1969 as also under Section 77 (2) of the navy Act, 1957 (for short "the said Act" ). He was tried by a General Court martial which found him guilty of charges No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17 and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, dismissal from service besides imposing fine of Rs. 6,91,700/ -. The petitioner was dismissed from the service of Indian Navy w. e. f. 21. 05. 2004 However he could not be arrested for undergoing the simple imprisonment due to a stay in respect of his arrest granted by Mumbai High Court and later extended by the Apex Court, which is continuing even till date.

(3.) THE charges for which the petitioner has been convicted are highlighted as under: