Partly allowed

Union of India v. Sumathi Ravichandran

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020OP (CAT)/114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal challenging the 'non est' rider attached to an order extending the time for completing departmental inquiry. The court held there was no infirmity in the memo of charges despite claims of victimization and directed completion of inquiry by 31-03-2021.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal allowed; 'non est' rider set aside; inquiry proceedings directed to be completed on or before 31-03-2021.

Union of India Vs Sumathi Ravichandran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.226 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1063/2017 DATED 26-07-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶10

SUMATHI RAVINDRAN AGED 58 YEARS

¶11

W/O.DR.R.RAVICHANDRAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI-682 020, PRESENTLY ON TRANSFER AND WORKING AS POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLY-620 001, RESIDING AT PMG'S QUARTERS, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 020.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.A.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS/DIRECTOR GENERAL, POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶15

2 THE ASST.DIRECTOR GENERAL(VIG.II), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶16

R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).114/2020, THE COURT ON 08-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶19

-2-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶25

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶26

OP (CAT).No.114 OF 2020

¶27

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2019 IN MA 1149/2019 IN OA 1063/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶28

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶29

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS/DIRECTOR GENERAL (POSTS), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶30

2 THE ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL (VIG I) DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI- 110 001.

¶31

BY ADV. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, SCGC

¶32

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶33

SUMATHI RAVICHANDRAN

¶34

AGED 59 YEARS W/O.DR.R.RAVICHANDRAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI, RESIDING AT PMG'S QUARTERS, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 020.

¶35

BY ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.A.

¶36

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).226/2019, THE COURT ON 08-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶38

-3-

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2020

¶41

Gopinath, J:

¶42

These Original Petitions arise out of two orders in OA No.1063/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. O.P (CAT) No.226/2019 arises out of an order dated 26-07-2019 rejecting the challenge raised in respect of initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings by the Department of Posts. Though the challenge to the initiation and continuation of the proceedings was rejected, the Tribunal directed that the proceedings should be completed within a period of 4 months from 26-07-2019. OP (CAT) No.114/2020 arises from the order dated 27-11-2019 in MA No.1149/2019 in OA No.1063/2017 through which the Department was granted 2 more months to complete the inquiry with a rider that if the inquiry is not completed within the extended time i.e. on or before 2701-2020 all proceedings will be deemed to be non-est . The documents referred to in this judgment are as they are marked before the Tribunal. The parties are referred to as they appear in OP (CAT) No.226/2019.

¶43

While working as Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, on deputation from the Postal Department, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a raid at the residential premises of the

¶44

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020 -4-

¶45

petitioner (applicant before the Tribunal), on 24/25-04-2019. Three separate criminal cases were registered against her. She was acquitted of all blame in the two of the cases, namely in RC/20/A/2009 and RC/21/A/2009. We need not, for the purpose of this judgment, note in any detail the facts which led to the registration of the aforesaid cases for it is common case that the issues therein have attained finality. A memo of charges under the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’) in relation to the cases where the petitioner obtained an acquittal was issued on 15-03-2017. This was quashed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 17-07-2019 in OA No.179/2019. The third criminal case was in relation to allegations of having disproportionate assets. In that case the CBI filed a final report recommending closure of the First Information Report (FIR) which was also accepted by the concerned CBI court. However, departmental action was recommended against the petitioner. Consequently, Annexure-A1 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. Annexure-A1 relates to the allegations of disproportionate assets and misrepresentation of facts in an application made to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for getting allotted a plot in Chennai etc. The Tribunal rejected the challenge against Annexure-A1 memo of charges as it did not see any ground made out to interfere with the same. It was directed that the proceedings shall be

¶46

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020 -5-

¶47

completed with the time granted by the Tribunal.

¶48

We have heard Sri. Shafik M.A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India and its officers. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the issuance of Annexure-A1 memo of charges is a clear case of victimization. He would submit that this is a case where the Rules have been violated with impunity and that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before issuance of Annexure-A1 memo of charges under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He would refer to the fact that the request made by the petitioner for supply of documents under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was blocked until she obtained an order from the Central Information Commissioner. He would also submit that the documents (file notings) thereafter supplied under RTI Act have been redacted as a result of which the name of the officer who took the decisions on file was purposefully withheld. He would submit that the inquiry proceedings are unnecessarily delayed in order to ensure that the petitioner is denied her due promotions. He would also submit that the Secretary of Posts had already taken a decision to close the case against the petitioner. However, according to him, the files show that subsequently a new Secretary had taken charge

¶49

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020 -6-

¶50

and after suppressing the correct facts, sanction was obtained from the Hon'ble Minister for issuing Annexure-A1.

¶51

Per contra , the Assistant Solicitor General would submit that

¶52

even the closure report filed by the CBI in the disproportionate assets case shows that prosecution was dropped by the CBI only on account of the fact that the percentage of disproportionate assets was considered to be low. He would submit that one of the charges in Annexure-A1 relate to a representation submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for getting a plot allotted in Chennai, wherein she clearly suppressed the fact that her husband and other members of her family were in ownership and possession of valuable residential and commercial buildings in Chennai. According to him, reading of the representation would clearly suggest that the suppression was with the intention to gain undue advantage through allotment of land from the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to him such lands were meant for Government servants who had no landed properties. He would also refer to various other allegations in Annexure-A1 memo of charges and submit that the Tribunal could not have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the completion of the inquiry within 4 months and could not have further directed while granting extension of time through order in MA No.1149/2019 that if the proceedings are not completed before 27-

¶53

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020 -7-

¶54

01-2020 the entire proceedings should be considered non est in law. He would submit that this is a case where a detailed inquiry with reference to various documents, some of which may be in the custody of CBI may have to considered to reach a final conclusion regarding guilt or innocence of the petitioner. He would therefore submit that the department must be permitted to continue with the disciplinary proceedings and complete it within a reasonable time to be fixed by this court.

¶55

We have considered the contentions raised by either side. At the outset it must be noticed that the challenge in OA No.1063/2017 was to a memo of charges. Courts or Tribunals will not ordinarily interfere with a memo of charges unless it were to be found that the issuance of memo of charges was a clear abuse of power, against any statutory provisions or vitiated by malafides. In the facts of the present case it can be seen that the disciplinary inquiry initiated by issuance of Annexure-A1 was on account of recommendation made by the CBI to initiate regular Departmental action against the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the Assistant Solicitor General the CBI did not give a clean chit to the petitioner in the disproportionate assets case. The CBI did not proceed with prosecution steps only on account of the fact that the percentage of disproportionate assets, when compared to the known sources of income

¶56

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020 -8-

¶57

of the petitioner and her family, was not so high warranting the continuance of any criminal prosecution. We find that even though the petitioner has attempted to establish certain allegations of victimization and malafides they fall woefully short of the legal threshold which may have to be achieved before a Court or Tribunal would quash a memo of charges at the stage of inquiry. We therefore find absolutely no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The inquiry must be proceeded with and it must be completed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal could not have declared that if the proceedings are not completed by 27-01-2020 all proceedings shall be deemed to be non est in law.

¶58

We therefore dismiss the O.P (CAT) No.226/2019 confirming the order of the Tribunal to the extent it refused to interfere with Annexure-A1 memo of charges.

¶59

In so far OP (CAT) No.114/2020 is concerned as already noticed the only challenge in that original petition is to an order dated 27-11-2019 through which the time limit for completing the inquiry was extended by 2 months and where it was further directed that the proceedings if not completed within the extended time will be deemed to be non est in the eye of law. Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is due to retire from service in 2021, we direct that the proceedings against the petitioner

¶60

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶61

-9-

¶62

should be completed at any rate before 31-03-2021. We therefore allow O.P (CAT) No.114/2020 by setting aside Ext.P7 order and directing that the inquiry proceedings shall be completed on or before 31-03-2021. We leave open all contentions raised by the petitioner and make it clear that the observations in this judgment are made only for the purpose of deciding this lis and should not be used against the petitioner in any manner, in the departmental inquiry.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶71

-10-

¶72

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 226/2019

¶73

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/1063/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CAT.

¶75

EXHIBIT P1 A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.11-11/CVC/2011 VIG DATED 30.08.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 A-2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN RC 20/A/2009. EXHIBIT P1 A-3 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN RC 67/A/2009. EXHIBIT P1 A-4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.02.2010 AND THE BIAS PETITION FROM THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR, CBI NEW DELJHI. EXHIBIT P1 A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.03.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR, CBI NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P1 A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE REPORT MADE BY THE CBI AND SUBMITTED TO THE CBI COURT.

¶76

EXHIBIT P1 A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2010 PASSED IN CRL.MP NO.6196/2011 IN RC NO.67/A/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE, CHENNAI.

¶77

EXHIBIT P1 A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2017 IN CC NO.37/2011 OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, IXTH ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI.

¶78

EXHIBIT P1 A-9 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGESHEET FRAMED ON 26.04.2012 BY THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES.

¶79

EXHIBIT P1 A-10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH PASSED ON 21.07.2017 IN OA 298/2017 AND OA 278/2017.

¶80

EXHIBIT P1 A-11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.09.2017 SUBMITTED TO A-1 CHARGE MEMO.

¶81

EXHIBIT P1 A-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 02.07.2008 OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶82

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶83

-11-

¶84

EXHIBIT P1 A-13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C2/RC/22(A)/2009/CBI/AC/CHEN DATED 22.11.2010 SENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL(VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS.

¶85

EXHIBIT	P1 A-14 TRUE SENT DEPAR AGAIN	COPY OF THE TO SR.DEPUTY TMENT OF POS ST THE PETIT	CBI LETTER DATED 13.04.2017 DIRECTOR GENERAL(VIGILANCE), TS DIRECTING INTIATION OF RDA IONER.
EXHIBIT	P1 A-15 TRUE DATED AUTHO	COPY OF THE 24.11.2017 RITY.	ORDER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG APPOINTING INQUIRING
EXHIBIT	P1 A-16 TRUE DATED OFFIC	COPY OF THE 24.11.2017 ER.	ORDER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG APPOINTING PRESENTING
EXHIBIT	P1 A-17 TRUE SUPRE TRIAL	COPY OF THE ME COURT DIR NOT LAGER T	ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 OF THE ECTING COMPLETION OF THE HAN 6 MONTHS.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE RESPO	COPY OF THE NDENTS IN IN	REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE OA NO.180/1063/2017.
EXHIBIT	P2 R-1 COPY DATED	OF THE MEA O 05.05.2009.	RDER NO.V.VIH.II/843/03/09
EXHIBIT	P2 R-2 COPY 20.08	OF THE ORDER .2009.	NO.V.VIG.II/843/03/09 DATED
EXHIBIT	P2 R-3 COPY	OF ORDER NO.	V.IV/575 DATED 20.08.2009.
EXHIBIT	P2 R-4 COPY DATED	OF ORDER NO. 14.09.2011.	C-2/RC(67)/2009/CBI/AC/CHEN
EXHIBIT	P2 R-5 COPY VIGIL	OF OM DATED ANCE COMMISS	04.08.2017 OF THE CENTRAL ION.
EXHIBIT	P2 R-6 COPY	OF PARA 7 OF	DOP & T OM DATED 14.09.1992.
EXHIBIT	P2 R-7 COPY HON'B	OF THE ORDER LE IX ADDL.S	DATED 023.03.2017 OF THE PECIAL JUDGE, CHENNAI.
EXHIBIT	P2 R-8 COPY 23.12	OF THE OM NO .2016.	.010/P & T/137-332210 DATED
EXHIBIT	P2 R-9 COPY III)	OF DOP & TS DATED 21.07.	OM NO.11012/6/2007-ESTT(A- 2017.

¶86

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶87

-12-

¶88

EXHIBIT P2 R-10 COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.11-12/CBI/2010-VIG DATED 15.03.2017.

¶89

EXHIBIT P2 R-11 COPY OF LETTER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG DATED 30.08.2017.

¶90

EXHIBIT P2 R-12 COPY OF LETTER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG DATED 16.05.2016.

¶91

EXHIBIT P2 R-13 COPY OF EXPLANATION FROM SMT.SUMATHI RAVINCHANDRAN DATED 16.06.2016.

¶92

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 16.05.2018 FILED IN OA NO.180/1063/2017.

¶93

EXHIBIT P3 A-18 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RULES AND 3 OF THE POSTAL MANUAL VOLUME III.

¶94

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MA FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN OA NO.180/1063/2017 FILED BEFORE THE CAT.

¶95

EXHIBIT P4 A-19 TRUE COPY OF RTI REQUEST LETTER DATED 13.09.2017 ADDRESSED TO CPIO.

¶96

EXHIBIT P4 A-20 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY DATED 27.09.2017 FROM THE ASST.DIRECTOR GENERAL(VIGILANCE-I) & CPIO.

¶97

EXHIBIT P4 A-21 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05.10.2017 ADDRESSED TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTOR(VIG).

¶98

EXHIBIT P4 A-21 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05.10.2017 ADDRESSDED TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTOR(VIG).

¶99

EXHIBIT P4 A-22 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶100

EXHIBIT P4 A-23 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL FILED ON 18.01.2018 BEFORE THE CIC.

¶101

EXHIBIT P4 A-24 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.06.2018 IN THE 2ND APPEAL PASSED BY THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI.

¶102

EXHIBIT P4 A-25 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE CIC AGAINST ON-COMPLIANCE OF CIC'S ORDERS BY THE CPIO.

¶103

OP (CAT) N	os.2	26/2019	& 114/2020	-1	3-
EXHIBIT	P4	A-26	TRUE COPY CONTAINED 03.08.2018	OF THE IN CIC .	NOTICE AND DIRECTIONS 'S OFFICE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT	P4	A-27	TRUE COPY TOGETHER W PROVIDING	OF THE ITH EN INFORM	LETTER DATED 29.08.2018 CLOSURES SENT BY THE CPIO ATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5		TRUE COPY THE COUNSE	OF THE L FOR	ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT	P6		TRUE COPY THE COUNSE	OF THE L FOR	ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT	P7		TRUE COPY OA NO.179/	OF THE 2019 O	JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2019 IN F THE CAT.
EXHIBIT	P8		TRUE COPY OA NO.1063	OF THE /2017	JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2019 IN OF THE TRIBUNAL.
RESPOND	ENT	'S/S	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	R1		TRUE COPY 05/05/2009	OF THE BY THE	ORDER NO.V/VIG.II/843/09 DATED MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
EXHIBIT	R2		TRUE COPY 14/09/2011	OF THE .	ORDER NO.2-17/2011-SPG DATED
EXHIBIT	R3		TRUE COPY 25/09/2012	OF THE .	ORDER NO.2-17/2011-SPG DATED
EXHIBIT	R4		TRUE COPY 13/11/2013	OF THE .	ORDER NO.11-2/2010-SPG DATED

¶104

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶105

-14-

¶106

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 114/2020

¶107

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶108

ANNEXURE	(A1) TRUE COPY OF 11/CVC/2011, THE 2ND RESP	THE VIG ONDEN	MEMORANDUM NO.11- DATED 30/08/2017 ISSUED BY T.
ANNEXURE	(A2) TRUE COPY OF	FIR	IN RC/20/A/2009.
ANNEXURE	(A3) TRUE COPY OF	FIR	IN RC/61/A/2009.
ANNEXURE	(A4) TRUE COPY OF AND THE BIAS ADDRESSED TO	THE PETI THE	COMPLAINT DATED 24/02/2010 TION FROM THE APPLICANT DIRECTOR CBI, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE	(A5) TRUE COPY OF ADDRESSED TO	THE THE	COMPLAINT DATED 11/03/2010 DIRECTOR CBI, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE	(A6) TRUE COPY OF CBI AND SUBM	THE ITTED	CLOSURE REPORT MADE BY THE TO THE CBI COURT.
ANNEXURE	(A7) TRUE COPY OF IN CRL.M.P.N BY THE PRINC	THE O.619 IPAL	ORDER DATED 7/10/2010 PASSED 6/2011 IN R.C.NO.67/A/2009 SPECIAL JUDGE, CHENNAI.
ANNEXURE	(A8) TRUE COPY OF CC NO.37/201 FOR CBI CASE CHENNAI.	THE 1 OF S, IX	JUDGMENT DATED 3/03/2017 IN THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT,
ANNEXURE	(A9) TRUE COPY OF 26/04/2012 B CBI CASES CH R.C.NO.21/A/	THE Y THE ENNAI 2009.	CHARGE SHEET FRAMED ON PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR IN C.C.NO.29/2011 IN
ANNEXURE	(A10) TRUE COPY OF TRIBUNAL PAS & O.A.278/20	THE SED O 17.	COMMON ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE N 21/07/2017 IN O.A.298/2017
ANNEXURE	(A11) TRUE COPY OF SUBMITTED TO	THE A1 C	REPLY DATED 27/06/2017 HARGE MEMO.
ANNEXURE	(A12) TRUE COPY OF 02/07/2008 O PROPERTY RET	THE F THE URN S	ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR UBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE	(A13) TRUE COPY OF NO.C2/RC/21( 22/11/2010 S	THE A)/20 ENT T	LETTER 09/CBI/AC/CHEN DATED O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
	GENERAL (VIG	ILANC	E), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS.

¶109

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶110

-15-

¶111

ANNEXURE	(A14) TRUE COPY OF THE CBI LETTER DATED 13/04/2017 SENT TO THE SR.DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DIRECTING INTIMATION OF RDA AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE	(A14) TRUE COPY OF THE CBI LETTER DATED 13/04/2017 SENT TO THE SR.DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DIRECTING INTIMATION OF RDA AGAINST THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE	(A15) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG. DATED 24/11/2017 APPOINTING THE INQUIRING AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE	(A16) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG DATED 24/11/2017 APPOINTING THE PRESENTING OFFICER.
ANNEXURE	(A17) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/02/2016 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DIRECTING COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL NOT LATER THAN 6 MONTHS.
ANNEXURE	(R1) COPY OF MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ORDER NO.V.VIG.II/843/3/09 DATED 05/05/2009.
ANNEXURE	(R2) COPY OF ORDER NO.V.VIG.II/843/3/09 DATED 20/08/2009.
ANNEXURE	(R3) COPY OF ORDER NO.V.IV/575/01/2005 DATED 20/08/2009.
ANNEXURE	(R4) COPY OF LETTER NO.C-2/RC(67)/2009 CBI/AC/CHEN. DATED 14/09/2011.
ANNEXURE	(R5) COPY OF O.M. DATED 04/08/2017 OF THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE	(R6) COPY OF PARA 7 OF DOP&T OM DATED 14/09/1992.
ANNEXURE	(R7) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2017 OF THE HON'BLE IX ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE, CHENNAI.
ANNEXURE	(R8) COPY OF OM NO.010/P&T/137-332210 DATED 23/12/2016.
ANNEXURE	(R9) COPY OF DOP7T'S OM NO.11012/6/2007-ESTT (A- III) DATED 21/07/2017.

¶112

OP (CAT) Nos.226/2019 & 114/2020

¶113

-16-

¶114

ANNEXURE (R10)	COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.11-12/CBI/2010-VIG. DATED 15/03/2017.
ANNEXURE (R11)	COPY OF LETTER NO.11-11/CC/2011-VIG. DATED 30/08/2017.
ANNEXURE (R12)	COPY OF LETTER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG. DATED 16/05/2016.
ANNEXURE (R13)	COPY OF EXPLANATION FROM SMT.SUMATHI RAVICHANDRAN DATED 16/06/2016.
ANNEXURE (A18)	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RULES 2 AND 3 OF THE POSTAL MANUAL VOLUME III.
ANNEXURE (A19)	TRUE COPY OF RTT REQUEST LETTER DATED 13/09/2017 ADDRESSED TO CPIO.
ANNEXURE (A20)	TRUE COPY OF RTT REPLY DATED 27/09/2017 FROM ASTT. DIRECTOR GENERAL (VIGILANCE-I) & CPIO.
ANNEXURE (A21)	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05/10/2017 ADDRESSED TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTOR (VIG.).
ANNEXURE (A22)	TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DT. 05/01/2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE (A23)	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL FILED ON 18/01/2018 BEFORE THE CIC.
ANNEXURE (A24)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 08/06/2018 IN THE 2ND APPEAL PASSED BY THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE (A25)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE CIC AGAINST NON-COMPLIANCE OF CIC'S ORDER THE CPOP.
ANNEXURE (A26)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN CIC'S OFFICE LETTER DATED 03/08/2018.
ANNEXURE (A27)	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/08/2018 TOGETHER WITH THE ENCLOSURES SENT BY THE CPIO PROVIDING INFORMATION TO APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 1063/2017 WITH ANNEXURES (PAGES 16-203).

¶115

OP (CAT) N	os.226/201	9 & 114/2020 -17-
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA 1063/2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES (204-283).
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1020/2018 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES (32- 423).
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2019 OF HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN OA/180/1063/2017.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF MA 1149/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN OA/180/1063/2017.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 27/11/2019 IN MA 1149/2019 IN OA/180/1063/2017.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.8(1)(G)/99(3) DATED 03/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUB-RULE (24) OF THE 3 CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES 1965.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11-11/CVC/2011-VIG. DATED 3/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE ADG(VIG), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS.

Union of India v. Sumathi Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sumathi Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary to Government Vs Xavier V.X.

Athira Sadhu (Employee Code NO.5527) Vs Union of India

Rajeeva Lochanan K R Vs Sunil Barthwal

S.Vijaya Kumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

S.Rajalakshmy, Vs Sasidharan K.V.

Sumathi Ravindran Vs Union of India