MUKESH KUMAR Vs. MANORANJAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a complaint being Crl. Complaint No.1037/1/06 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. Dr. Manoranjan and others, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking summoning of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/166/167/120B/34 IPC and Sections 7 and 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant was appointed as Management Trainee (Administration) vide SAIL Appointment letter dated 10th May, 1991 and joined the organization at Rourkela plant. Thereafter he was posted at various positions and lastly he was the Manager at E-4 grade. In the complaint it is stated that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community and though as per the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India representation of SCs/STs in each cadre/group of services was required to be improved including within Group-A posts, however, contrary to the policy of the Constitution and the objectives of the Directive Principles, the SAIL Management vindictively in the name of merit denied promotion to the petitioner by three years, depriving him of the benefits of the reservation policies in promotion and victimized him. It is alleged that except the SCs/STs, all the other seven general category candidates of the year 1991, MT (A) batch were promoted to E-4 grade w.e.f. 30th June, 2001, however, the promotion of the petitioner was delayed by three years. Assessment grades were never communicated to the petitioner at the end of each year and promotions within Executive Cadre upto E-7 grade were not based on vacancy and were decided upon the suitability of the candidates considered for promotion.

(3.) It is further alleged that in the year 2003, petitioner was superseded by his juniors. Realizing that some officers were silently spoiling the service record of the petitioner without disclosing the same to him, petitioner exercised his right under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act') to have access to his own file. However, the same was also denied to him without specifying any concrete reason. In order to annoy the petitioner, senior officers unilaterally changed his job profile from Marketing Division to Civil Maintenance, wasting his 15 years of experience in marketing. Further the petitioner was also annoyed deliberately when he was unilaterally excluded and discriminated from amongst the 38 officials (Executives) of SAIL-ISP's Branch Sales Office who were transferred to SAIL-CMO in March/April, 2006 after dissolution of Branch Sales Offices at IISCO. Later IISCO branch offices were merged with SAIL-CMO in April, 2006 and six staff personal, subordinate to the petitioner were also transferred to SAIL-CMO offices at Delhi itself. Further with mala fide motive and to annoy the petitioner, he was transferred and the transfer/ release order was served simultaneously at his residence on 20th April, 2006 while he was availing his leave for MBA examination. The transfer/release order was served deliberately on the petitioner on his anniversary date to further annoy him and increase his pain. It is alleged that officials were intentionally giving the petitioner wrong replies under the RTI Act. Despite extraordinary achievements and exceptional performance at Okhla Stockyard and excellent record of past ten years, accused persons deliberately discriminated with the petitioner only for the reason that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community and awarded him poor grade in assessment with sole intention and knowingly to annoy him to deprive him of his due legal rights.