INDIRA SISUPAL Vs. R.S. GUJARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision against the dismissal of her complaint, dated 23-4-2012, informing commission of offence under Sections 34, 120(B) read with Sections 161, 193, 196 and 409 IPC by as many as 19 persons, at secretarial and like ranks. Under orders, dated 5-6-2005, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present revision. In dismissing the complaint, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai informed that these prima facie must be a criminal act of the accused in furtherance of common intention or that they should have been indulged in a criminal act by entering into an agreement between themselves. He found that no such allegation was made against the accused, that the complainant had not stated that the accused have acted with common intention or committed any illegal act. It was seen that the primary allegation of the complainant was that she had not been given promotion in the year 1997 on the ground that she was not yet fit for promotion whereas her juniors had been. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found that not only this petitioner but also others had not been promoted on the ground of their being 'not yet fit' while some others were promoted and in doing so due process was followed. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate informed that offences then covered u/s. 161 to 165(A) IPC had been repealed u/s. 31 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Observing that no allegation of the accused having demanded money or having indulged in corruption was made, he found that the accused could not be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the petitioner based her complaint on the findings of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1068/1997 and dismissal of W.P. No. 8206/1999 preferred there against, it was observed that there was no finding by either body that the accused had given false evidence or used evidence known to be false. Hence 193 and 196 IPC were found not attracted. He also observed that no criminal breach of trust by accused officials were involved. Observing that along with many others, the promotion of the petitioner also was not recommended based on the guidelines fixed by the department and that a successful challenge to denial of promotion would by itself would not give rise to criminal action against officials, the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The very basis of the complaint is the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in O.A. Nos. 1353 of 2011 and 1354 of 2011, the petitioner having moved the first against denial of promotion to her and the second against disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. Orders have been passed in both OAs in her favour and the challenge thereto in writ proceedings had been negated. The relevant observations in the orders in O.A. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 2011, dated 27-3-2013 [: 2013 (291) E.L.T. 500 (CAT)], which form the basis of the petitioner's accusation of commission of criminal offences are as follows: