PARMJIT SINGH NAYYAR Vs. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined Indian Navy as an Artificer Apprentice on August 4, 1977. After completion of training, the petitioner served in various ships and establishments of Indian Navy. On January 3, 1988 the petitioner was sent to Yeovil (U. K) for training in maintenance of Seaking Helicopters, then being acquired by Indian Navy. The petitioner, after completion of training, returned back to India and thereafter was promoted to the rank of Master Chief Air artificer II on October 1, 1989.

(2.) WHILE in United Kingdom, the petitioner came in contract in with Miss Sally Recardo, a British national and who was working in the hotel where the petitioner was residing. The petitioner developed intimate relations with Recardo. In year 1988, Miss Recardo came down to India at the cost of the petitioner. The petitioner secured leave for two months and travelled with Recardo all over the country. Miss Recardo came back to India again in June 1989 and the petitioner took her to Goa and other places around Bombay. Miss Recardo came back to Bombay on third occasion in May 1990 and was accommodated by the petitioner. On May 20, 1990 while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle with Miss Recardo as a pillion passenger, the motorcycle met with an accident. The petitioner suffered injuries and was admitted to Cooper Hospital and thereafter to Hinduja National Hospital. As the petitioner failed to report back to INS Gomati, a ship to which the petitioner was attached, the senior officers opened the locker of the petitioner and removed several articles and prepared a panchanama.

(3.) AFTER the petitioner returned back to duty, the petitioner was interrogated and after the petitioner admitted about intimate relations with Miss Recardo, was taken to Delhi and kept in the Red Fort for closer interrogation. The petitioner was then brought back to Bombay and was charged under section 68 of the Navy Act 1957. The charges was that between January 4, 1988 and May 20, 1990 the petitioner maintained continuous and intimate contract with Miss Recardo, a British National in contravention of Chapter VII (0739) of Western Naval Command Order (Personnel and Administration) Security and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 68 of the Navy Act. The investigating Officer warned the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 28 (1) of the Regulations for the Navy Part II. The petitioner was then asked as to whether he understood the charge as well as the warning. The petitioner replied in the affirmative and then asked whether he wishes to make any statement in answer to the charge. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and submitted a written statement. The petitioner admitted that after he went to United Kingdom on January 4, 1988 he was introduced to Miss Recardo by one Pillai who knew her for previous two years. The petitioner admitted that he developed further close relation and though the petitioner did not give her forwarding address, Miss Recardo found it out and addressed a letter requesting him to make arrangement for a visit to India. The petitioner admitted that Miss Recardo visited India on three occasions and was entertained by him. The petitioner claimed that he was unaware of the rules pertaining to contract with foreign nationals. The petitioner claimed that he did not take prior approval or gave intimation of his contact with Miss Recardo to the superior officers. The petitioner claimed that he did not discuss with Miss Recardo the service matters or did not take her to any installation of Navy. The explanation given by the petitioner was not acceptable and the Commanding Officer prepared and signed the punishment warrant dismissing the petitioner from service. The punishment imposed was approved by the Flag Officer Chief in Command and subsequently by Chief of the Naval Staff. The order dated August 2, 1991 served upon the petitioner is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.