Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi Inder Singh vs Union Of India Through on 7 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3698 of 2011 This the 7th day of December, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Ravi Inder Singh, K-71, Nivedita Kunj, Sector 10, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. Applicant ( By Shri K. T. S. Tulasi, Sr. Advocate and with him Shri Gaurang Vardhan, Ravinder Singh, Chandan Singh Juneja, Ms. S. Janani and Shri Deepak Goel, Advocates ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training), New Delhi-110003. Respondents ( By Shri R. V. Sinha, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Ravi Inder Singh, an IAS officer of 1994 batch of the West Bengal Cadre, presently on central deputation, holding the post of Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the applicant herein, has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking revocation of his suspension order dated 19.09.2011, and in consequence thereof, to reinstate him as Director in any Ministry of the Government of India at New Delhi, as also to restrain the respondents from repatriating him to his parent cadre, i.e., West Bengal.
2. Brief facts as culled out from the pleadings culminating into filing of the present Application, reveal that the applicant who came on central deputation in December, 2009, while holding the post of Director in the Ministry of Home Affairs, was involved in an FIR dated 22.11.2010 under Section 13 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Primarily, the charge against the applicant is that while entrusted with the job of internal security matters relating to the safety and security of the country, he indulged in passing valuable information to some businessmen in Delhi and Mumbai to be used by them for their business purposes for pecuniary benefits to him and others. He was arrested on 23.11.2010 and was placed under suspension on 30.11.2010. His suspension was continued on the recommendation of the review committee after obtaining approval of the competent authority for further period of 180 days, vide order dated 18.02.2011. It is the case of the applicant that the investigating agency filed the status report of the case in the Honble High Court of Delhi on 18.07.2011 in connection with the bail petition of the applicant, which was pending before the High Court at that time. The significant aspect/findings as mentioned in the status report, as per the case set up by the applicant, reveal as follows:
i. Petitioner had no role in decision making.
ii. Petitioner was directed to issue a letter of DoT regarding clearance given to M/s Telecordia.
iii. There is no reference with regard to illegal gratification demanded or given in reference to official duties of the petitioner.
iv. There were persistent demand of money by Vineet Kumar from Deepak Talway, Sanjeev Sharma of M/s Telecordia.
v. The petitioner did not write any partly supportive note.
vi. The phone of the petitioner were kept under surveillance, therefore, the entire conversation between petitioner and other accused were recorded. Thus excluding the possibility of knowledge of money demanded by co-accused or any overt act alleged to have been performed in that regard. It is further the case of the applicant that contentions made on his behalf for grant of bail were considered by the Honble High Court on the basis of the status report, which has been referred to in the order granting bail to him on 21.07.2011. The significant observations that came to be made by the High Court on the submissions made by the learned counsel representing him, it is urged, would be reflected from para 4 of the order, which reads as follows:
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the Petitioner primarily are that in consideration of hospitality and entertainment, he has passed on the information to the interested parties. The information is not covered under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The other allegation is with regard to having prepared a partially positive note in favour of M/s Telecordia Technologies Inc. The allegations with regard to preparing forged identification documents for procuring mobile phones are relatable to Vineet Kumar, the co-accused, who has already been granted bail. There is no doubt that corruption is a menace, thus, affecting the progress of the country and corroding the system. However, at this juncture the issue is how long the Petitioner has to be kept in custody pending the trial. The charge sheet has already been filed. The Petitioner has been in custody for nearly 8 months. The evidence primarily relates to documentary evidence in the form of partially favouring note and intercepted conversation. The evidence primarily being documentary in nature against the Petitioner, there is less likelihood of its being tampered with. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to grant regular bail to the Petitioner.
3. Shri K. T. S. Tulsi, learned Sr. Advocate, representing the applicant, contends that the Government in its wisdom has laid down meticulously rules/instructions requiring mandatory review of suspension after every ninety days, violation whereof would render the suspension to be illegal howsoever serious may be the allegations against an employee. This mandatory review, it is urged, is for the purpose, which is to see and take note of the significant developments that may take place in the interregnum, and if some such developments do take place, whether the same would go against the employee or in his favour, have to be necessarily taken into consideration. If such developments are not taken into consideration while reviewing suspension of an employee, the very purpose of carrying out periodical reviews would be defeated, thus contends the learned counsel. While referring to the developments which may be significant and ought to have been taken into consideration, the learned counsel states that from the day of arrest of the applicant till such time supplementary challan came to be filed, and from the significant facts that emerged from the status report asked for by the High Court, there were developments going in favour of the applicant. It is further urged that the charge of corruption was diluted, and that chances of tampering with evidence, as judicially noticed, were negligible, because the case is dependent upon documents, and yet the respondents, without application of mind and mechanically, based upon the same facts as may be obtainable against the applicant when he was initially placed under suspension, carried on keeping him under suspension. On the contentions as made above, it is urged by the learned sr. counsel that the respondents may constitute a special review committee which may examine the case of the applicant afresh and pass appropriate orders, continuing or otherwise the suspension of the applicant, wherein the developments, as mentioned above, which have taken place from registration of the FIR till date, must be taken into consideration.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. We would have referred to the pleadings made in the written statement as also dealt with the contentions of the learned counsel, but in view of the perusal of the records, which we required the learned counsel representing the respondents to make available to us, and which indeed have been made available, we are of the view that there would be no need to go into the matter in detail, as the respondents have themselves taken into consideration the developments that have taken place, and in the last review of suspension of the applicant, have clearly mentioned that the same would be for a period of thirty days. Inasmuch as, the respondents have taken into consideration the material developments and expressed the opinion, which we would refer to hereinafter, there would be no need, as mentioned above, to deal with either the contention of the learned counsel as noted above, or the defence that has been projected in the counter reply.
5. Present OA came up before us for the first time on 14.10.2011 when we issued notice returnable on 02.11.2011. The records reveal that the suspension of the applicant was reviewed on 18.02.2011 and the committee recommended continuation thereof for a further period of 180 days, which period was to expire on 19.08.2011. On 29.07.2011, the review committee headed by Secretary (P) examined the matter and took note of the fact that the investigating agency had vide letter dated 21.07.2011 recommended that reinstatement of the applicant would not be desirable, since there was every likelihood that he may influence the public witnesses, which were to be examined during further investigation as well as trial. The committee also took into consideration the progress of the case since filing of the charge-sheet on 22.01.2011. It was noted that the investigating agency was likely to complete investigation shortly, and a supplementary charge-sheet was to be filed within a month if CFSL report was to be received in time. Considering the fact that the main charge-sheet against the applicant had been filed on 22.01.2011 and the remaining investigation was to be completed shortly, the committee recommended that suspension of the applicant be continued for a further period of thirty days beyond 19.08.2011. When the recommendation reached the Honble Prime Minister, a question was posed as to why the suspension was required to be revoked after thirty days. We need not mention the reasons as to why after the aforesaid opinion came to be expressed, the review committee recommended continuation of suspension for a further period of two months. The reasons can be deciphered from the records made available to us. Suffice it to say that the review committee in its meeting held on 03.11.2011 has recommended that the applicant be prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre, and till the process of his repatriation is completed, his suspension be continued for a further period of thirty days with effect from 18.11.2011. While making the recommendation as mentioned above, what has been taken into consideration is that (i) the investigation in FIR No.51/2010 has already been completed, (ii) supplementary charge sheet against Dr. Ravi Inder Singh has also been filed on 21/9/2011, in addition to main charge sheet filed on 22/1/2011, and (iii) the case is under trial and the officer is already out on bail. It is clearly mentioned in the note prepared by the Under Secretary on 04.11.2011 that the committee did not find much justification for keeping the applicant under continued suspension indefinitely and paying him subsistence allowance without taking any work, and further that the apprehension of the investigating agency that if reinstated, the applicant would influence witnesses, could be taken care of by repatriating him to his parent cadre. It is then mentioned that the committee had unanimously recommended that the applicant may be prematurely repatriated to his parent cadre, and till the process of his repatriation was to be completed, his suspension may be continued for a further period of thirty days only. On an earlier occasion, as mentioned above, when the recommendation of the committee was to extend the period of suspension of the applicant for a period of thirty days, the Prime Minister had required to know the reasons for revoking the suspension of the applicant, but this time as per note dated 17.11.2011 recorded by Director, PMO, it appears that the Prime Minister has agreed to it. In view of the recommendation of the review committee, which, it appears, has been agreed to by the highest authority in the country, it appears that the applicant may not be put under further suspension after expiry of thirty days, and, therefore, there may not be any further extension of suspension of the applicant beyond 16th or 17th December, 2011, as the case may be. The applicant, in our view, would not know as to what transpired while extending the period of his suspension from time to time. Naturally, he would have no access to the records. Be that as it may, once, the significant developments as pointed out by the learned counsel representing the respondents have already been taken into consideration and a decision has been taken as mentioned above, there would be no need to delve any further into the matter. If, however, there may be a further order of extension of suspension of the applicant, it would be open for him to revive his present Application, or, if he may deem it appropriate, to challenge the order of extension of suspension beyond 17.12.2011, by filing a fresh Application. Surely, for the reason that no order as regards repatriation of the applicant has been passed, and any challenge to an anticipated repatriation order would be premature, the learned sr. counsel representing the applicant, in our view, rightly so, did not argue in that regard.
6. In view of the reasons/observations mentioned hereinabove, this Original Application stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/