Indira Sisupal vs R.S. Gujaral

C.T. Selvam, J.

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 Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate informed that offences then covered u/s. 161 to 165(A) IPC had been repealed u/s. 31 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.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.

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:

"12. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 27-7-2011 and the facts and circumstances of the case reveals that in the name of disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant the respondents have been harassing the applicant without promotion and failed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings nor acted upon question of promotion to be given to the applicant in time. The respondents authorities can not be justified to keep the applicant for quite a longer period without promotion when many of her juniors are promoted and in that case it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to take all efforts to complete the proceedings in time. Accordingly we hold that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not promoting the applicant at the appropriate time and promoting the applicant''s junior is discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. Thus, we hold that the impugned rejection order in F. No. C-18011/09/2011-Ad.II, dated 27-7-2011 is illegal and unlawful. Accordingly we quash and set aside the same. In the result, OA 1353 of 2011 is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the applicant in the grade of Assistant Commissioner and take appropriate and speedy steps to promote the applicant to the grade of Deputy Commissioner at par with her junior and further promote her to the grade of Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner with all consequential benefits, positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondents had been dragging the matter for quite a long period thus causing prejudice to the applicant, the charge memo dated 12-2-2004 is vague, without any evidence and above all unexplained and inordinate delay has occurred in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and accordingly the punishment imposed vide impugned order in F. No. C-14011/33/2001-Ad.V/5898, dated 17-8-2011 is discriminatory, violative of natural principles of law and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the applicant. Accordingly we quash and set aside the same. In the result, O.A. No. 1354 of 2011 is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the arrears due to the applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, each and every act of arbitrariness cannot be termed to be illegal. There must be a link which indicates that the act of arbitrariness was owing to any criminal intent on the part of the persons accused. Finding no merit in the revision, this criminal revision case stands dismissed.