CAT Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Rejects Former IPS Officer Rajnish Kumar Rai's Plea In Case Against Preliminary Inquiry, Show Cause Notice

The Gujarat High Court has rejected former IPS Officer Rajnish Kumar Rai's plea against Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench's ruling that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear his challenge against a preliminary inquiry and a show cause notice issued to him by union government in 2021. A division bench Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar said Rai was required to file his case against the issuance of show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 before CAT's Principal Bench in New Delhi."We are of the view that the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench has no jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application No.65 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the facts of the present case," said the court.Rai, who was a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, was also the probe officer of the case related to high-profile alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. He has been chargesheeted for unauthorizedly handing over the charge of IGP, CIAT School, CRPF, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh in 2018 and abdicating office on his own without permission of the competent authority.BackgroundRai was posted as IG, NES, CRPF, Shillong, on 30-03-2017, when two persons were killed in an alleged fake encounter. The encounter was carried out in a joint operation of the Assam Police, the Indian Army, the CRPF. He, therefore, duly informed about this operation to ADJ, NE Zone, CRPF, Guwahati and to the other competent authority as per the practice, his counsel told the court.,However, Rai was transferred from the post of IG, NES, Shillong to IG, CIAT School, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. He also got to know that a preliminary inquiry was being conducted against him in the matter of the alleged fake encounter. Subsequently, Rai filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi challenging his transfer to Chittoor and also the institution of preliminary inquiry against him in the matter of fake encounter.On 09.08.2017, the Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissed the application on the ground that since Rai had joined his new post, the grievance in respect of his transfer had become infructuous. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Application as well as Review Application filed by Rai by the Tribunal, Principal Bench, he challenged the same before the High Court of Delhi. During the pendency of the said proceedings before Delhi High Court, a show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 was served to Rai. He then filed an application in the writ petition requesting a stay of the show cause notice.The Delhi High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, observing that the issuance of the show cause notice gave rise to a fresh cause of action and Rai could pursue his grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rai therefore filed an application before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, challenging the issuance of the show cause notice. The respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench and requested that the said application be dismissed. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, vide order dated 16.02.2023, dismissed the application.Rai, thereafter, filed a Review Application before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Ahmedabad Bench dismissed the review application vide order dated 22.03.2023. He thereafter moved the High Court. The primary issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has the jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s application challenging the issuance of show cause notice to him by the respondent.SubmissionsAdvocate Rahul Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Rai had handed over the charge of IGP, CIAT School, CRPF, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh on 30.11.2018 and abdicated office on his own without permission/orders of the competent authority. The petitioner continues to remain absent unauthorizedly, as alleged, till the date of filing of the petition and also he has no plan to return to the service of the IPS and he is in employment at IIM for almost four years. Sharma referred to Rule 7(2)(a) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 which provides that a member of the service shall be deemed to have resigned from the service if he is absent without authorisation for a period exceeding one year from the date of expiry of sanctioned leave or permission.The counsel then referred to Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 which provides that for the persons, who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service, may at their option, file an application before the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. It was further argued that the words ‘termination of service’ used in the aforesaid Rule had to be interpreted liberally and the focus of the words should be on the words ‘ceased to be in service’ and retirement and dismissal are simply examples of the same...

CAT Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Rejects Former IPS Officer Rajnish Kumar Rai's Plea In Case Against Preliminary Inquiry, Show Cause Notice

Bhavya Singh

Tags