SUMATHI RAVINDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions arise out of two orders in OA No.1063/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. O.P (CAT) No.226/2019 arises out of an order dated 26-07-2019 rejecting the challenge raised in respect of initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings by the Department of Posts. Though the challenge to the initiation and continuation of the proceedings was rejected, the Tribunal directed that the proceedings should be completed within a period of 4 months from 26-07-2019. OP (CAT) No.114/2020 arises from the order dated 27-11-2019 in MA No.1149/2019 in OA No.1063/2017 through which the Department was granted 2 more months to complete the inquiry with a rider that if the inquiry is not completed within the extended time i.e. on or before 27- 01-2020 all proceedings will be deemed to be non-est. The documents referred to in this judgment are as they are marked before the Tribunal. The parties are referred to as they appear in OP (CAT) No.226/2019.

(2.) While working as Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, on deputation from the Postal Department, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a raid at the residential premises of the petitioner (applicant before the Tribunal), on 24/25-04-2019. Three separate criminal cases were registered against her. She was acquitted of all blame in the two of the cases, namely in RC/20/A/2009 and RC/21/A/2009. We need not, for the purpose of this judgment, note in any detail the facts which led to the registration of the aforesaid cases for it is common case that the issues therein have attained finality. A memo of charges under the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the 'CCS (CCA) Rules') in relation to the cases where the petitioner obtained an acquittal was issued on 15-03-2017. This was quashed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 17-07-2019 in OA No.179/2019. The third criminal case was in relation to allegations of having disproportionate assets. In that case the CBI filed a final report recommending closure of the First Information Report (FIR) which was also accepted by the concerned CBI court. However, departmental action was recommended against the petitioner. Consequently, Annexure-A1 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. Annexure-A1 relates to the allegations of disproportionate assets and misrepresentation of facts in an application made to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for getting allotted a plot in Chennai etc. The Tribunal rejected the challenge against Annexure-A1 memo of charges as it did not see any ground made out to interfere with the same. It was directed that the proceedings shall be completed with the time granted by the Tribunal.

(3.) We have heard Sri. Shafik M.A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India and its officers. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the issuance of Annexure-A1 memo of charges is a clear case of victimization. He would submit that this is a case where the Rules have been violated with impunity and that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before issuance of Annexure-A1 memo of charges under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He would refer to the fact that the request made by the petitioner for supply of documents under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act ) was blocked until she obtained an order from the Central Information Commissioner. He would also submit that the documents (file notings) thereafter supplied under RTI Act have been redacted as a result of which the name of the officer who took the decisions on file was purposefully withheld. He would submit that the inquiry proceedings are unnecessarily delayed in order to ensure that the petitioner is denied her due promotions. He would also submit that the Secretary of Posts had already taken a decision to close the case against the petitioner. However, according to him, the files show that subsequently a new Secretary had taken charge and after suppressing the correct facts, sanction was obtained from the Hon'ble Minister for issuing Annexure-A1.