Even while holding the officer, senior scientific assistant M M Sharma, as 'not reliable for holding sensitive or superior positions', the two-member tribunal headed by vice chairman Justice M Ramachandran asked the government to review the penalty of denial of pension or even compassionate allowance.
Sharma, who was posted at the Indian mission in China in July 2007, was recalled in May 2008 and put under suspension on September 5, 2008. He was subsequently dismissed on December 22 last year.
The tribunal asked the government to bear in mind that 'a former officer of the Government of India is not to bear a begging bowl for his livelihood, he may have a family to support and the advanced age may bring him financial responsibilities'. It directed the government to communicate its decision to the aggrieved officer within four months. The tribunal pointed out that Sharma was dismissed just two years before his retirement and there were no adverse reports against him in his service records.
Even while recording that the government did not produce files concerning Sharma, the tribunal said: 'We do not think it might be necessary for us to go through such files as we feel that even the circumstances as now available are sufficient for us to hold that there essentially was no arbitrariness in the government's approach'. It, however, noted that 'it may not be possible to gather what, in fact, prompted the President to come to a decision to dismiss him'.
The government counsel had repeatedly taken the plea during hearing that an inquiry was not held before dismissing the officer as disclosure of the classified secret materials would not in the interests of national security. The counsel indicated that the officer had given access to his computer to the woman, enabling her to read secret documents.
'By permitting a free hand to a person who was holding a position in the Communist Party of China to peruse the documents without any restraint was shocking', the tribunal noted, agreeing with the government counsel.
Sharma submitted before the tribunal that he fell victim to rivalry between two women. One was his house maid hired as he had left his family behind in India. The other one was Maggie, introduced to him by a colleague staying with him to teach him the local language.
Sharma averred during questioning that Maggie was a person of loose character but he decided to establish close links with her to get some classified information of prime importance as she was a CPC worker and regularly attended the party's official meetings. He also admitted that the chief of mission had cautioned him to "be very careful''.
According to Sharma, while Maggie wanted the maid removed, the maid wanted to ban Maggie's entry into the house. He did not oblige Maggie and so she complained to the mission that he was having illicit relations with the maid, resulting in an inquiry. Sharma told the tribunal that he reduced the frequency of his meetings with Maggie but did not completely end his association with her because he very much wanted to gather useful information from her.
He told the tribunal that he was not given any reason whatsoever why he was called back and the suspension and consequent dismissal had come as a shock to him. His plea was that had an inquiry been held, he would have known the allegations against him and would have explained his position as there was nothing alarming about his conduct.
