VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Vijay Singh is the complainant in the private complaint covered by CC SR.No.512 of 2015, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. The private complaint was maintained against three accused. The petitioner is working as Seed Officer at National Seeds Corporation Limited (for short, 'NSCL'), Secunderabad, by then. The 1st accused-Vinod Kumar Gaur was by then the Chairman and Managing Director of NSCL, New Delhi. The 2nd accused-B.B.Saw was the General Manager (HR) of NSCL, New Delhi and the 3rd accused-A.Sarkar was the Assistant Manager (HR), NSCL, New Delhi, by then. In the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC & ST (POA) Act'), read with Section 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') with averments that he is a permanent resident of Bharathpur District of Rajasthan State and belong to Scheduled Caste Community by caste within the state of Rajasthan, by the time of complaint working as Seed Officer and in-charge of the Quality Control Laboratory (South) of NSCL, at Lallaguda, Secunderabad, and subordinate to the accused persons in the NSCL and the accused belongs to a Brahmin Caste and OBC; that the accused have been harassing him and their actions have been disheartening to him in spite of the maximum efforts put in by him; that the accused have been harassing him in a way out of the rules prescribed by the Corporation and in a way obstructing the growth and promotional avenues of him, for he belongs to Scheduled Caste; that the accused being his bosses in the Hierarchy in the administration are acting against the rules of NSCL in an arbitrary manner intentionally to check the growth and betterment of the Corporation; that his Annual Confidential Report (for short, 'ACR') for the year 2011-2012 asked by accused to be written by a junior to him by name D.V.Singh, Seed Officer, junior to the complainant in the seniority list, which is against the rules and principles of natural justice; that ACR was accepted by the Head Office by Memorandum No.21(1)/2011/APAR/NSC, dated 03.10.2012; that the ACR for the year 2012-2013 written by one Bhagwati Prasad, another Seed Officer, incharge of Quality Control Laboratory (South), who is senior to the complainant and sent to the General Manager (Production/Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, as per instructions of the Regional Manager, NSCL, Secunderabad, vide Letter No.ACRS/Admin/NSC-HYD/2012- 2013/4736, dated 23.03.2013, directing that the ACRs of the staff of Quality Control Laboratory (South) had to be forwarded to General Manager (Production/Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, for action on the ACRs; that as per above instructions, Bhagwati Prasad, Seed Officer supra sent the ACRs of the complainant of the year 2012-2013 vide letter No.ACR/ACL(S)/NSC-HYD/2013-14/021, dated 04.04.2013, to General Manager (Production/Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, and the same was accepted by the Reviewing Authority and sent to Acceptance Authority and further accepted without any comments; that the Regional Manager, Regional Office, NSCL, Secunderabad, directed the in-charge, Quality Control Laboratory (South), Lallaguda, Secunderabad, vide Letter No.RM/PMS-2013/NSC-SEC/2013- 2014/3747, dated 07.02.2014, that the Performance Appraisal and Development Report of the staff working under him be sent to the Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, for further action; that accordingly, the in-charge, Quality Control Laboratory (South) sent the ACRs of the complainant for the period of 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 (six months) to the Reviewing Authority i.e., Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, for necessary action vide Letter No.ACR/QCL(S)/NSC-Hyde/2013-14/1808, dated 17.02.2014; that again the Regional Manager, Regional Office, NSCL, Secunderabad, directed the in-charge, Quality Control Laboratory (South), Lallaguda, Secunderabad, vide Letter No.RM/PMS-2013/NSCSEC/2013-2014/252, dated 21.04.2014; that the Performance Appraisal and Development Report of the staff working under him be sent to the Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, for further action; that accordingly, the complainant's ACR for the period of six months from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 sent to Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, for further action and the Reviewing Authority forwarded to the Acceptance Authority and it was accepted.

(2.) It is further averred, in addition to the above facts upto para 13 of the complaint, from para 14 to para 24 of the complaint that accused supra in connivance with each other directed the Administrative Section to send the complainant's ACR for the period of six months supra to Regional Manger, NSCL, Secunderabad, for re-writing against the laid rules and instructions and degraded the marks awarded to him in an arbitrary manner; that the accused acted in a manner against the rules and instructions vide Letter No.RM/PMS-2013/NSC-SEC/2013- 2014/252, dated 21.04.2014, which shows that the Regional Manager is not empowered to check the ACRs of the staff of Quality Control Laboratory (South), NSCL, the accused intentionally re-written and degraded the ACR of the complainant already checked and reviewed by the Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, over- writing and tampering with a mala fide intention and to spoil the career of him; that the accused issued a letter under File No.2(11)/06- HR/NSC/211, dated 29.12.2014, though conveyed that the ACR of the complainant for the period from 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 for the year 2013-2014, was not acceptable, as it was written by Bhagwati Prasad, Seed Officer, In-charge, Quality Control Laboratory (South), NSCL, Secunderabad, as he was of the same cadre officer; that Bhagwati Prasad, Seed Officer supra, written the ACRs of the complainant pertaining to the year 2012-2013 vide Letter No.ACR/QCL(S)/NSCHYD/2013-14/021, dated 04.04.2013, supra sent to the General Manager (QC), NSCL, New Delhi, was accepted, the accused are intentionally calling for the re-writing of ACR of the complainant vide Letter No.RM/PMS-2013/NSC-SEC/14-15/3391, dated 13.01.2015, on the base of accused Letter vide Letter No.2(!1)/06-HR/NSC/211, dated 29.12.2014, which is illegal and arbitrary; accused are acting in an illegal manner in order to spoil the career of the complainant, accused are trying to re-write the ACR of complainant, which laid out rules barring the Regional Manager to check the ACRs of the staff of the Quality Control Laboratory (South) and the Deputy General Manager (Quality Control), NSCL, New Delhi, is only eligible to do the said work that was illegal and contrary to law; that the accused are intentionally harassing and re-writing the ACR of the complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and action of the accused would mar the interests of the complainant and would finish the chances of promotion to the next promotional avenues and thereby spoiling the career of the complainant; that A-1 to A-3 have given false and frivolous information to the higher officials in the institution and damaged the chances of promotion of the complainant; that the accused supra misused their lawful power for causing injury to complainant; that they have done the acts attracting the provisions of the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act read with Section 120 (B) IPC; and that the accused are thereby liable for penal consequences and also for the costs of several lakhs amount (not legible) and as the offences they committed is within the jurisdiction of Malkajgiri Police Station, at Lallaguda, Secunderabad, the learned Magistrate got jurisdiction and the complainant enclosed nine documents with the complaint, dated 18.02.2015, vis., (1) Copy of seniority list; (2) Copy of ACR for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2012; (3) Copy of letter, dated 03.10.2012; (4) Copy of ACR for the year 2012-2013 (01.04.012 to 31.03.2013); (5) Copy of Letter of the Regional Manager, Secunderabad, dated 21.04.2014, (6) Copy of ACR for the year 2013-2014 (01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013) six months; (7) Copy of ACR for the period 2013-2014 (01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014); (8) Copy of Letter, dated 13.01.2015 (calling for rewriting); and (9) Copy of Caste Certificate of the complainant.

(3.) In the entire complaint, it is not even stated pursuant to the Document No.9, Caste Certificate of the petitioner/complainant of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, of he is also Scheduled Caste in State of Telangana as on the date of filing of the complaint to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court within the State with the claim as Scheduled Caste, which is pre-requisite even to apply Section 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Even taken for arguments sake that he is Scheduled Caste within the State of Telengana also from that certificate without any further clarification, sofar as the application of Section 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act concerned, what it reads is that whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six (06) months, but may extend to five (05) years and with fine. Intention is the pre-requisite to annoy or injure the complainant. Even from the very complaint, sofar as the accusation against A-1 to A-3, who are in New Delhi and working there concerned, it is not they that have written the ACR of the complainant in any of the respective years even from his very say. According to him, those were written either by D.V.Singh, Seed Officer, or Bhagwati Prasad, Seed Officer, as the case may be. What all it says is the ACRs are forwarded and those were considered. It is not even his case that these three Officers, who are Chairman and Managing Director of NSCL, General Manager (HR) of NSCL and Assistant Manager (HR) of NSCL, at New Delhi, particularly by advising by any specific letter to mar his career, specifically directed any of the persons, who have written the ACR supra to write any remarks adversely against his career to mar his promotional chances even to sustain any accusation of taking recourse under Section 3 (1) (ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act. That is totally silent even from the face value of very reading of the complaint without any further reference to other material. Leave about that fact is not even in dispute. What is his sworn statement in the private complaint procedure to take cognizance under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. that was recorded by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, dated 12.03.2015, is nothing new than repetition of the averments in the complaint and the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 15.04.2015, from the complaint averments with the enclosures of the documents 1 to 9 and the sworn statement of the de facto complainant-Vijay Singh supra, dated 12.03.2015, read that A-1 to A-3 furnished allegedly false information to the higher authorities and damaged the chances of promotion to the next higher post of the complainant and his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were prepared by junior or equal cadre officers, he was harassed in the hands of accused pertaining to preparation of ACRs, which exclusively a departmental procedure and based on the performance of individual employee, the same is being prepared and offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act requires intentionally giving any false or frivolous information to any public servant and causing such public servant to use his lawful power to injury or annoyance of the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and in the present case on hand, it is not even brought on record that complainant initiated any complaint before the superior officers against A-1 to A-3 and whether any enquiry conducted pertaining to giving of any false information and once it is not established, much less brought into light how complainant suffered and damaged in their hands and basis for giving promotion for the employees in the department not even mentioned in his coming to the conclusion that he is really deprived of his legitimate right to promotion to next higher level, the complaint filed by the complainant is only pertaining to a departmental issue and the allegations mentioned are not making out any offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC & ST (POA) Act and the averments in the complaint no way reveal any prima facie case against any of the accused to proceed further in the present case for the offence and thereby the complaint proceedings are liable to be dismissed in passing the order under Section 203 Cr.P.C.