PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Quash the impugned letter No. CS/1900/FOK /DISC/PVA dt. 25.06.2019 at Annexure-A2 issued by the HQ Karnataka Naval Area, Naval Base, Karwar – 581308.

(ii) Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits.”

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was appointed as Master Gr-II (Boat Crew) as per the appointment order No. CS (II)/ 2577/RB/II/Master/Gr-II dated 07.12.2017. He was working at HQ Karnataka Naval Area, Naval Base, Karwar. During his probationary period, the applicant was found involved in sharing video/photograph of movement of capital ships on social media i.e. Facebook, the same being an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, a preliminary investigation was carried out by CofY, Karwar. It was admitted by the applicant that the offence was committed by him merely in excitement without any wrong intentions. On considering the said offence committed by the probationer applicant, he was terminated from service. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this application.

3. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred OA No. 739/2019 before this Tribunal. The same was dismissed, vide order dated 27.11.2019. Review Application No. 106/2019 was filed by the applicant to review the said order dated 27.11.2019 passed in OA No. 739/2019. The said Review Application was allowed in terms of the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by this Tribunal recalling the order dated 27.11.2019 and restoring the OA at its original. Subsequently, the said OA was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Original Application as per the order dated 02.03.2021. Hence, this OA is filed by the applicant.

4. Learned counsel Shri K. Hanifa representing the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence coming under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (‘Act’ for short). Shooting the video/photograph of the warships on the navy day was only a mistake and the same was not made with any criminal intention/ulterior motive. Termination order is not in conformity with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. Hence the punishment of termination imposed on the applicant is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

5. Learned counsel further argued that there was no secrecy in the movement of capital ships in the open sea unless it is taken out that the applicant had deliberately supplied the information to some other entity. The wrong committed by the applicant would not come within the purview of Section 5 of the Act. On the navy day celebration, public were allowed to view the warships and any wrong committed by the applicant cannot be considered seriously to impose the punishment of termination.

6. Learned counsel Shri K. Gajendra Vasu referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents argued that the Naval Base, Karwar falls under the category of “Prohibited Area” falling under sub-clause (a) of clause 8 to Section (2) of the Act. Sharing of video/photograph of movement of capital ships on social media such as Facebook is an offence under the Act. In the appointment order, the applicant was informed that he will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining duty. He was required to undergo training. Successful completion of training was pre-requisite qualification for completion of probation period. His services was liable for termination without any notice and without assigning any reasons during the period of probation. During the period of probation, the applicant has committed the offence. The same being serious and a security threat, he was terminated from services.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. In terms of Section 2 (8) (a) of the Act, “prohibited place” means:

“(a) any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, camp, ship or aircraft belonging to, or occupied by or on behalf of Government, any military telegraph or telephone so belonging or occupied, any wireless or signal station or office so belonging or occupied and any factory, dockyard or other place so belonging or occupied and used for the purpose of building, repairing, making or storing any munitions of war, or any sketches, plans, models or documents relating thereto, or for the purpose of getting any metals, oil or minerals of use in time of war;”

9. Para 3 of the appointment order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure-A1) stipulates that the applicant is liable for termination without any notice and without assigning reason during the period of probation. The applicant has joined the organization only after confirming the conditions stipulated in the appointment order. The applicant has admitted uploading of the videos/photos of the moving warships on social media, which is certainly not mere breach of the Act but also compromising national security. Though no reasons are required to be assigned for terminating the applicant from service, the speaking order was issued to ensure the principles of natural justice. The case was examined by the competent authority i.e. CSO (P&A), HQWNC who has accorded approval for termination of services of the applicant for the misconduct. Further, para 5 of the appointment order also makes it clear that the appointment is provisional, hence quoting of Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules would be of no relevancy in deciding the matter. In the reply statement it is stated by the respondents that in view of the specific condition regarding termination of services without any notice during or at the end of the period of probation (including extended period, if any), it has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Law that in cases where such provision has been specifically made in the letter of appointment, it wold be desirable to terminate the services of the probationer/person on probation in terms of the letter of appointment and not under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. That being so, mere quoting of Rule 5 would not invalidate the termination order.

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made videos of warships inside naval dockyard, divulging the first hand location and movement plans. The applicant was employed as a boat crew staff in a naval dockyard (prohibited area) was bound to maintain the secrets. Any leakage of sensitive information by the staff of a boat crew, being authenticated, would corroborate the intel of antinational elements, severely compromising the security of the nation. The applicant had admitted the offence committed. Indian Navy being responsible for the security of the nation cannot compromise on their subordinates doing something on the spur of the moment on excitement or otherwise with probably no criminal intention. Dissemination of any information with respect to prohibited area certainly comes within Section 5 of the Act. The applicant is defending his action referring to the navy day celebrations and the information available on the internet relating to warships. It is the specific case of the respondents that movements of naval warships are not available on internet. It is admitted fact that the applicant has uploaded the movement of warships on the social media. Any wrong committed by an employee of Indian Navy stands on a different footing and the same cannot be compared with a wrong committed by a civilian. Taking shelter under any mistake committed by a civilian or on the navy day celebrations, the offence committed by the applicant cannot be considered in a lighter way. The security of the nation cannot be compromised by any way.

11. It is reiterated that the termination order is passed having regard to the conditions of the appointment order, wrong quoting of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 would not vitiate the termination order. The impugned termination order is termination simpliciter and the same cannot be treated as causing stigma to the applicant for any eligible post in future.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the application.

13. In the result, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.