AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A): The applicant, Sri Subrat Kumar Nayak, working as Sr. Audit Officer (Hqrs.) in the office of Accountant General (Audit)-I, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, has submitted representation dated 25.10.2022 to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi praying for according prosecution sanction against the officers Shri Bibhudutta Basantia, IA & AS-1996, Ms. Jyoti Chaurasia, IA & AS-2015, Sri Raul P, IA & AS- 2016 and Ms. Snigdha Mahanti, Serior Audit Officer, under the provisions of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) 1973 and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The competent authority considered the said application of the applicant dated 25.10.2022 but did not find any ground to accord the prosecution sanction against the official/officers named above and the reasons thereof was communicated to the applicant vide order No. C-14011/03/2023-EG dated 29.08.2023 (A/5).
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication No. C-14011/03/2023-EG dated 29.08.2023 (A/5), applicant submitted application dated 30.10.2023 (A/7) inter alia praying therein as under:
“In view of the facts enumerated above, it may kindly be appreciated that the case deserves a thorough review by the competent authority for sanction of prosecution against the officials in question for an exemplary action without giving any scope of discrimination. However, I am enclosing herewith all the relevant documents as evidence as per the Statement-1 {(Containing Seven (7) Annexures with 162 pages)} attached for kind perusal.”
Thereafter, the applicant has preferred this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 praying inter alia as under:
“……to direct for disposal of the Review application dated 30.10.2023 submitted before the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7 by the petitioner within a stipulated time for the interest of justice.”
Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that an FIR was filed by one Snigdha Mohanti on 19.11.2019, which was registered as PS Case No. 426/2019 before the Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as CT Case No. 5696/2019 before the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. The Investigating Officer after due inquiry submitted its report based on which the CT Case No. 5696/2019 was dropped by the competent court of law vide order dated 19.08.2022. Meanwhile, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.01.2020. The suspension of the applicant was reviewed and extended vide order dated 30.03.2020. The Internal Complaint Committee inquired on the complaint and submitted its report dropping/closing the allegations made against the applicant. The applicant filed an ICC Case for criminal defamation against the officers before the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar wherein the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 30.06.2022 and 02.08.2022 directed the applicant to obtain the sanction from the competent authority in terms of Section 197 of CrPC. Hence, applicant submitted application which was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2023 and being aggrieved, the applicant preferred application dated 30.10.2023 seeking review of the decision dated 29.08.2023. But, the respondents sat over the matter, therefore, there being no other alternative, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the instant OA. Hence, he has prayed for the relief as aforesaid.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that this OA, in the present form, is not maintainable in the eyes of law because although the prayer made in this OA appears to be as simple as alleging inaction against the authority concerned for non-consideration of his review applicant but, in fact, going by the said review application dated 30.10.2023 it would be established that in the said review application, his prayer is for a direction to the respondents to accord sanction of prosecution against the officials, in question, for an exemplary action and, thus, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain any such application filed by an employee seeking prosecution sanction under Section 197 of CrPC against any other officer. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prima facie objected to the prayer of the applicant and has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various submissions of the respective parties. Before going to the nitty gritty of the matter, we would like to place the relevant provision of Section 14 of the AT Act, which is as under:
“14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court (***) in relation to—
(a)recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;
(b)all service matters concerning—
(i)a member of any All-India Service; or
(ii)a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii)a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 3[or society] owned or controlled by the Government;
(c)all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.]
(2)The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation 3[or society] controlled or owned by a State Government:
Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations [or societies].
(3)Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court in relation to—
(a)recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 1[or society]; and
(b)all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 1[or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs.”
In the case in hand, the applicant has himself admitted in the pleadings that he preferred ICC Case for criminal defamation against the officers before the Learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar and in order to meet the pre-condition, in terms of the order of the Learned SDJM, he has sought the prosecution sanction of the competent authority provided under Section 197 CrPC. It may be noted that Section 197 of the CrPC defines that no court is capable of taking cognizance against public servants for crimes committed except with prior sanction from the competent authority. It is noted that the applicant did not make any of the officers, against whom he had sought prosecution sanction but the authority did not grant the same, as party respondents in this OA as required under law.
We are agreed with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that though the prayer made in this OA looks as simple as if he has submitted review application against any of his service grievance but the respondents authorities did not consider the same thereby giving rise to a cause of action to him to approach this Tribunal, but, in deeper scrutiny of the matter, it is established that the review application submitted by the applicant is to seek review of the rejection for grant of prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC in connection with ICC defamation case filed by the applicant against the officers. Now, the question arises for consideration of this Tribunal as to whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this OA in the present form and direct the respondent-authorities to consider the review application filed by the applicant seeking for grant of prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC. According to this Tribunal, this forum lacks jurisdiction and authority to deal with the grievance of an employee relating to grant/non-grant of prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC for institution of defamation case as it does not fall within the scope and ambit of the service condition. Therefore, on examination of this matter, this Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that the present OA, both on facts and law, is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Hence, this OA stands dismissed. No costs.
Copy of the OA along with order be sent to Respondent No. 2 by post and copy of this order be given to Ld. Counsel for both the sides.