AMRUTHA M. GEORGE Vs. SPICES BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is currently working as Assistant Director (Development) with the 1st respondent Board, joined the services of the Board as an Assistant Director (Accounts) in 2010. With effect from 25.10.2012, she was posted as Assistant Director (Development), and while working as such, the petitioner entered on maternity/child care leave. She rejoined duty only with effect from 8.5.2014. On 17.9.2014, the 1st respondent Board notified vacancies to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts) and Deputy Director (Audit and Vigilance), to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioner also applied for the said post. While so, by an order dated 13.10.2014, the petitioner was transferred to Kohima as Assistant Director (Development). The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer through W.P.(C).No.8295/2015, and the said writ petition is still pending consideration before this Court. By an interim order dated 17.3.2015, in the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondent Board to consider a representation that had been preferred by the petitioner against the transfer. By Ext.P3 order dated 10.4.2015, the said representation of the petitioner came to be rejected. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner proceeded to take up her assignment at Kohima.

(2.) In the selection process pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 17.9.2014, the petitioner was not selected to the post that she applied for. She therefore preferred an application dated 13.2.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act'], seeking information pertaining to the examinations conducted by the respondents in connection with the recruitment. In the application filed, the petitioner sought for details of the answer papers of the petitioner as well as other candidates so as to compare the same. While preferring the application, the petitioner, through a covering letter, indicated her reasons for preferring the application. Taking objection to the reasons stated by the petitioner in her application for seeking documents under the RTI Act, the respondent Board issued a memo dated 25.3.2015 seeking the petitioner's explanation for making, what they believed were, unsubstantiated statements against the respondents. Although the petitioner preferred a reply to the said memo served on her, the respondents proceeded to issue Ext.P1 charge memo dated 27.4.2015, contemplating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for having made unsubstantiated statements in the application under the RTI Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P1 charge memo that is issued to her inter alia on the ground that the said charge memo issued to her is virtually an act of harassment, and that the charge memo has been issued with mala fide intents and is baseless with regard to the charges alleged against her.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Therein, it is stated that what is served on the petitioner is only a charge memo, which marks the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and hence this Court ought not to interfere with the said charge memo since the sustainability of the charge against the petitioner can be decided only in the enquiry that is to follow. It is stated that the reckless and defamatory statements made in the application filed by the petitioner, under the RTI Act, constitute a misconduct. The respondents deny the averments in the writ petition that suggest mala fides as forming the basis of Ext.P1 charge memo. The respondents also justify the order of transfer that was served on the petitioner, transferring her to Kohima. As regards the selection process that was conducted by the respondents, pursuant to the recruitment notification, it is the stand of the respondents that the selection of candidates was pursuant to a fair and transparent procedure, and therefore, the suggestion of illegality is not substantiated in the writ petition. It is also pointed out that, dissatisfied with the documents furnished to her pursuant to her application under the RTI Act, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate authority has since disposed the appeal. It is, in particular, pointed out that, although the petitioner was given a copy of her answer sheet and the marks awarded to her, she has not alleged that the marks obtained by her were lower than what she had expected. In a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the averments in the counter affidavit are traversed in detail.