Accused of ‘lack of integrity’, Indian Air Force man wages a lone battle against the system. Court clears his name after 12 agonising years.
MUMBAI: It was the last day of the Mumbai courts’ summer session. A phone call from advocate Usha Purohit to retired wing commander Jitendra Sharma was heaven-sent. After 12 long years, Sharma had won the battle against the Maharashtra government to clear his name. “When Usha called to say that I had won the case, I was surprised. And happy that after 12 years, I had received good news,” says a relieved Sharma.
Sharma was deputed as a pilot to the government of Maharashtra (GOM) in 1982 and was soon absorbed into the staff strength. In 1988, the helicopter that he generally flew was grounded for maintenance. A year later, he received a jolt—a senior official demanded his resignation. “I was shocked that I had been asked to resign on the grounds that there was a case questioning my integrity. At that moment, I decided not to resign and instead fight back,” recalls Sharma.
As officiating Director of Aviation, Sharma had invited tenders for a particular project, effectively reducing its cost from an over-estimated Rs4.5 lakh to a mere Rs47,000. Subsequently, he was accused of ‘lack of integrity towards duty’, based on complaints made to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) by the maintenance agencies involved. At that point, the DGCA cleared Sharma of all charges.
However, Sharma’s trials were not over. Even after being completely cleared of all charges, the GOM held an inquiry against Sharma and compulsorily retired him. He was devastated, but determined to fight the order. He enlisted a lawyer to file a petition against the GOM. But here, too, there were problems—he had to wait eight years before he was given a hearing. “The system cripples you. It ensures you can’t fight back. I was brought up to believe that honesty and integrity are important, but this was not appreciated in the government. But I wanted to prove that the system has no courage to fight an honest person,” explains Sharma.
That was not the end of the matter —the judicial system had more surprises in store for Sharma. In the eight years that it took for the matter to be adjudicated, Sharma’s case was adjourned a number of times. Finally, just before the court closed for the 2006 summer holidays, the bench of justices SB Mhase and SR Dongaonkar gave the order, clearing Sharma of all the charges levelled against him.
For having taken so long, the judgement was astonishingly brief: “The court clarified that the said order shall not carry any stigma of inefficiency or misconduct on the petitioner.” The court also observed that “The joy of victimisation of any officer for a moment may cause huge loss to the government in such cases.”
Sharma is a happier man today. He says, “I felt vindicated after the judgement. From the first moment, I wanted to fight. The system is such that honesty often becomes a liability. But I know there is hope.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}