Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar Deriwal vs Revenue on 28 September, 2022
fi A No. 312 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL.APPLICATION No. 312/2022 Order reserved on: 26.09.2022 Date of order: 24.44.02 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J) Rakesh Kumar Deriwal S/o Shri Bhawani Singh Deriwal, aged about 43 years, resident of A-89, Vidhyut Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Mob. q | ; 81071882929, E-mail: [email protected] [The applicant is working on the post of Senior Intelligence Officer in Rajasthan, Group B] .. Applicant (By Adv: Shri Tanveer Ahmed) VERSUS | 1. Union of India through the Secretary, | 1) | Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi-110003. 2. The Director General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, having its Office at Mudit Square, Plot No. 24, Sector-32, Gurugram-122001. 3. Shri Alok Gupta, Additional Director General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, having its Office at C-62, Sarojini Matg, C-Scherne, Jaipur- 302001. ...Respondents (By Adv: Shri Kinshuk Jain) A No. 312/2022 ORDER Per: Shri Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) # (v) &
(vi) The impugned Order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) of relieving of the humble applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.
The humble applicant may be allowed to continue as Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.
The respondents may also be directed to conduct an in-house enquiry regarding the conduct and methodology and manner of work of the private respondents.
To Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to refer the matter to CBI for investigation in the matter as allege by the humble applicant, in the interest of justice.
To pass any other order deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.
Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favor of the applicant which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and Circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant has been repatriated, from the Directorate General of GST Intelliegence Jaipur Zonal Jaipur Zone vide order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-
A/1). The applicant claims that such pre-mature "A ce et hs 5.
QA No, 3142/2022 repatriation, ending his deputation which was to be for 05 years, after only. 05 months, is arbitrary and illegal and is also against many judicial pronouncements which have found such transfer and premature ending of deputations wrong. The applicant has also alleged mala- fides in such pre-mature ending of deputation, which according to him, has been ordered due to the complicity of the respondent No. 3 with some alleged tax offenders whom this respondent No. 3 wanted to protect and against who the applicant had intelligence to proceed against. The OA narrates an instance of how respondent No. 3 aborted an action,to stop and check a few trucks which were carrying some items. A search and seizure of such items would have revealed huge tax evasion, which was prevented by the respondent No. 3. The applicant had a meeting with some informer in relation to this large-scale evasion of taxes by a tobacco manufacturer. The respondents have taken that as an excuse to end his deputation. The applicant has prayed for staying his relief following the termination of his deputation, and has also prayed for quashing this order and ordering a CBI inquiry into all his allegations of corrupt practices of respondent No. 3.
3. The respondents have denied the averments of the applicants. It is stated that they have a right to @) 4 OA No, 3212/2022 terminate the deputation at any time taking into account the suitability, actual performance and for reasons of exigencies of service (refer Ex. Annexure-A/4).
Transfers and postings were necessary incidents of any employment and the applicant had no right to challenge them. The reply quotes from a number of judicial pronouncements to support this claim. The reply also contradicts the narrative given by the applicant as the reason for his transfer.. It is stated that the applicant's deputation had to be terminated since he was found to have had a Jong clandestine meeting, on 17.06.2022, in a five-star hotel, with a very high-ranking person/official of the brand owner of a tobacco company. This company was involved in a tax evasion case that was already been investigated by the applicant. He spent a few hours with such person, along with another official unconnected with the case. The applicant did not disclose this fact of meeting to any of his superior officers, either before or after the meeting. He could net give any reasonable and reliable explanation for it when he was confronted with thisfact after confirming. it from the video recordings of cameras fitted in the hotel lobby. Since such meeting raised doubts about the integrity of the applicant (and of the other officer who had accompanied him for meeting the high-level officer of the tobacco brand owner), the deputation of both these S OA No. 3412/2022 officers has been terminated and they have been sent back to their parent cadres. The reply denies the charges of mala-fides against the respondent No. 3 who is stated to be an honest officer. The applicant has thrown all these charges of mala-fides against the
- respondent No. 3 only after the applicant was caught and repatriated, following the discovery of his clandestine and dubious meeting with the high ranking person of a tobacco brand-owner (whose case he was investigating). The courts/Tribunal should not interfere in such cases of transfer/end of deputation orders, which do not violate any rules, and are necessary in the interest of administrative exigency. The reply also denies that any representation has been filed by the applicant against his pre-mature re-patriation.
4, The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his earlier story. He alleges that his meeting was with an informer. It was part of his duty. The respondents have not disclosed who did he meet (and he himself cannot disclose it to keep the confidentiality of the source of information). The applicant alleges that he has been threatened of putting his name amongst persons of doubtful integrity. A further reply to this rejoinder has been filed by the respondents, denying the claims made in the rejoinder and reiterating their (the respondent's) & OA No, 3412/2022 version of the story. The reply also quotes from various judicial pronouncements against judicial intervention in matters of transfers.
5. The matter was finally heard on 26.06.2022 when both the learned counsels of the parties very strongly argued in favour of their respective pleadings. The cases cited by them, in their pleadings and also at the time of arguments, are listed below:
(1) The applicant relied upon the following judgments:
a.
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 7 SCC 757] Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.N. Maity & Anr. [2015 SIR SCW 579] Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [(1978) 1 SCC 405] IK. Mansoori Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2017 (3) RLW 1969 (Raj.). (2). The respondents have placed reliance upon the following judgements:
a.
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2009) INSC 1351 Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 398 Union of India v. S.L. Abbas 1994 SCC (L&S)
230.
Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 1991 Supp.(2) SSC-659 .
[#2 4 2 Limited V. Sri Bhagwan & Another (2001) 8 / e. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation SCC-574 f. State of U.P. & Ors Vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402.
g. N.K. Singh V. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 98 h. State of Haryana & Ors V. Kashmir Singh & Another (2010) 13 SCC 306 i. Union of India & Ors Vs. H.N. Kritania (1989) 3 SCC 445 j. Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Poshani (1989) 2 SCC 602.
k. State of M.P. Anr V. S.S. Kourav & Others (1995) 3 SCC 270.
@ I. State of U.P. & Others Vs. Siya Ram and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 405.
m. S.C. Saxena Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC
583. n. Mohd. Masood Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (2007) 8 SCC 150 oO. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. R. Perachi & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC aA 137 @ p. Union of India & Ors Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 760 q. Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Workman (2001) 2 SCC 289 r. State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 330 s. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Prishad Vs. Natthi Lal 1995 (2) UPLBED 1128 t. Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajiv Ratan Pandey & Ors (2009) 9 SCC 337
6. There is no denying the fact that the terms of deputation (Annexure-A/4) itself provided that he is 8 QA No. 342/2022 liable to be repatriated at any time to his parent formation on account of exigencies of the services.
- There is apparently no violation of any rules or of the terms of deputation in pre-mature repatriation of the applicant. However, there are judicial pronouncements, many of which are cited in the Original Application, where the courts have interfered after finding arbitrariness or mala-fides in such actions. In the case before us, we have two narratives before us. One is by the applicant which says that some operation, involving stopping and searching of trucks carrying items that would have revealed tax evasion, was aborted by the respondent No. 3. The applicant got some information about the complicity of respondent No. 3 with the tax evading company, in his meeting with an informer of that company. He has been repatriated since his superior officers (especially respondent No. 3) are afraid of him exposing them. The story of the respondents is that operations of search and seizures. are team operations. They do have to abort some operations mid- way if it is considered more appropriate to do such searches at a different location. The applicant was found to have had a long clandestine meeting, in the late hours of 17.06.2022, with a very high level persona of the tobacco brand owner, who had flown to Jaipur in a Chartered Plane and was residing in a five start hotel.
F] : vets OA No. 3142/2022 4 ony tug alent & .
The applicant did not discloseyany of his superior officers ither before or after such meeting. It is: only after it er as discovered, he was confronted with it, and finally erdered to be repatriated due to suspicions of doubtful integrity, that he has started throwing charges of corruption against his superior officers.
7. We have gone through both these stories. It is not our intention, nor is it our mandate, to do any fact- finding inquiry to discover what kind of tax-evasions are happening with respect to any tobacco-brand product manufacturing or sale, or even to know which is a better method to prevent such tax-evasions., The intention is only to gather whether there is any apparent mala-fides in the pre-mature repatriation of the applicant. The respondents are very categorical in their response that the reason for the repatriation is the suspicion about integrity of the applicant after he was discovered to have had a meeting, without informing his superiors, with a person he was not supposed to meet. The applicant's response to this story, that he went to meet an infermer, without giving any details about who this informer was (since he has to protect the confidentiality ef the informer), without telling fis superiors either before or after the event, is prima-facie hard to believe.
The re-patriation has been ordered by a competent m the applicant has not even authority, against who raised any charge of mala-fides. There are charges of corruption raised against the respondent No. 3.
However, these are obviously raised only after the applicant has been ordered to be re-patriated, and no complaint, either oral or written, is even alleged to have been made by the applicant against this respondent. It is apparentlyythat the information about the complicity of respondent No. 3 was discovered by the applicant only during the clandestine meeting on 17.06.2022.
Again, we find it hard to believe that the all the officers _of the respondents, who decided for repatriation of the applicant were so gullible (or hand-in-glove) that they conspired to remove the applicant since he got an information about the complicity of the respondent No. 3 with the tobacco company. The learned counsel for the applicant wanted us to order a CBI inquiry so that the whole truth could be out. However, as mentioned at the outset, this Tribunal is not the forum for making such complaints or ordering such inquiries and there are other, more relevant bodies to look into such charges. We have only looked into prima-facie credibility of the two stories given by the applicant and the respondents. We find, using the normal test of reasonable presumptions, the version of the respondents, prima-
facie, more reliable.
| be is: any reason to interfere wi 8 As discussed in previous paragraph, since we have t found any reasonable prima-facie evidence to no SUPP th the decision to end the deputation of the applicant with the Directorate General of GST Intelliegence Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur. This order is not a punishment. It is not for us to judge the suitability of any officer for any particular job. It is a purely administrative matter. We are also not the competent court to judge any alleged act of corruption, to conduct inquiry or investigation and to take punitive actions in such matters. We are only concerned with whether the action taken by the respondents in the present case, of terminating his deputation, is totally arbitrary, against the rules and driven by mala-fide or ulterior motives. Since the applicant has. not given any reliable evidence to substantiate his charges of mala- fides, and since the respondents have given prima-facie justifiable reason to explain their administrative action, we see No reason to interfere with it.
9, We are, on purpose, not discussing all the cases, cited by both the parties, in detail here. The position of law, in matters ef transfers or end of deputation, is more or léss well-settled. It is for non-interference in ort the charges of mala-fides, we do not find there 12 QA No. 3412/2022 such matters unless there are strong reasons, such as mala-fides, arbitrariness, or extraneous considerations in such transfers. We are also resisting the temptation of selectively quoting, from cases, which support our : conclusion. 'suifice it is to say that we have gone | 'through the Citations and quotations mentioned by bath, "ure parties ard have also browsed through the copies of 7 juagere nts. produced at the time of the arguments. We ~ §nd that the decisions suggesting non-intervention by courts/Tribunal to be more fitting on the facts and eircumstances of this case.
40. The Original Application is, therefore, dismissed.
No. order as to costs.
Member (A) \-- -qaminna®: Shah} Member (J) +), ° iVw~