Navy, bureaucracy face off over senior postings

What has complicated matters is the case of Vice Admiral Harinder Singh, who is at present Fortress commander, Andaman and Nicobar, and who wants to return to the Naval Headquarters as a PSO. (Incidentally, there are four posts of PSO in the rank of Vice Admiral at Naval Hqs: Vice Chief of Naval Staff,Deputy Chief of Naval Staff (Operations) and the two chiefs of Personnel and Material.)

More than two years ago, on September 30, 1996, the day before he was to retire, Vice Admiral Harinder Singh was given an extremely rare extension of service by the then Defence Minister despite objections raised by the then Defence Secretary. After a year at Port Blair, he requested a posting as PSO to Naval Hqs. Even as the request was not entertained, this was followed by certain adverse observations made by Admiral Bhagwat in Singh’s Annual Confidential Report.

One objection was that while applying for leave abroad in 1997, Vice Admiral Harinder Singh declared it as “tourism” in Europe and gave his address as “various.” While in Moscow, he stayed with the representative of Crown Corporation, and in St Petersburg and London, he “enjoyed” their hospitality. The observation also states that “Crown Corporation is widely known to be involved in various deals of main equipment and spares.”

In response, ViceAdmiral Harinder Singh submitted a Redressal of Grievance (ROG) from the MoD, and which, amongst other issues, brought in Admiral Bhagwat’s lawyer wife. In his ROG, dated March 22, 1998, and now available as a public document, he says: “It is well known that Mrs Bhagwat is a half Muslim, card-carrying member of the Communist Party and their lawyer and this could possibly explain why so many officers from this denomination remain close to them”.

Even as the MoD expunged the observations in the ACR, the problem became even more murky, with more ROGs, even a show-cause notice for insubordinate language to the Vice Admiral, and then a ROG directly to the Defence Minister in May. This was followed by writs, petitions, a contempt notice to the Navy chief, and finally a counter-affidavit filed by Mrs Bhagwat on behalf of the CNS.

At the core of this issue, said South Block observers, is the freedom of an armed forces chief to function with his choice of PSOs. “Logically speaking, if anybody is charged withthe responsibility to taking an organisation to war, he should also be allowed to have the PSOs of his choice to run his headquarters. This is virtually what the Delhi High Court observed in the case of Lt Gen V P Airey in 1992,” said a retired senior Army officer.