The Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that the decision of the Tamil Nadu government to suspend and charge-sheet IPS officer Archana Ramasundaram, Director General of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and the first woman to head a paramilitary force, for relieving herself to join as the Additional Director of the CBI was prompted by “legal malice”.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar dismissed Tamil Nadu’s petition against the May 11 order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which the charge sheet against her for indiscipline had been quashed.
A 1980 batch IPS officer from Tamil Nadu cadre, Ms. Archana was suspended by the Tamil Nadu government on May 8, 2014 and charge-sheeted a month later for relieving herself from the post of the Director General of Police and Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, and joining as the Additional Director, CBI.
The High Court noted that the State government had itself forwarded Ms. Archana’s willingness to join the Central deputation in October, 2013 since she wanted to be with her aged parents. After her name was approved by the Cabinet Committee, multiple letters sent by the Centre requesting the State to relieve her went unanswered. Even Ms. Archana’s letters requesting that she be relieved to enable her to join as Additional Director, CBI, were not answered by the State. She then relieved herself from her earlier post following a letter by the Centre on May 7, 2014.
The State Government, which was in “slumber and maintaining stupor, responded with alacrity” by issuing an order dated May 8, 2014, that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against her for such indiscipline.
“...the State Government had kept quiet and maintained stony silence in spite of repeated letters of request by the Union of India to relieve the second respondent to join the post of the Additional Director. The State Government responded for the first time only after the second respondent (Ms. Archana) in terms of the directions issued by the Union of India in the letter dated May 7, 2014 had relieved herself and submitted papers for joining as Additional Director, CBI.”
“On repeatedly being asked why the State Government had not responded to the several representations written by the Union of India, the only response was that there were elections in the State of Tamil Nadu from March 3, 2014 and therefore, the services of the second respondent were required. On being questioned whether the said reason is recorded in the file or communication, the State Government has been unable to give an answer. The State Government has failed to set out and explain the reason, and therefore, their conduct falls short of being reasonable. In the legal sense, it would qualify as legal malice. This had prompted and was the motive for the issue of the charge sheet,” the Bench said.
Right to approach CAT
The Bench also rejected Tamil Nadu’s contention that the charge sheet’s validity could not be raised before the CAT, and said Ms. Archana “had the right to approach the Tribunal for quashing of the charge sheet issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, and in accordance with law, the said right was exercised.”
The court was also of the view that though any charge sheet should not be quashed at the initial stage, in the instant case, “it would not be fair and proper for this court to be oblivious and ignore the precarious position of the second respondent, who had to follow the orders of the first respondent (Union of India), and therefore, incur the acrimony and consequently disciplinary proceedings on the present charge sheet.”
“One cannot forget the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the cadre controlling authority of IPS officers...The languid conduct of the State Government from February 7 to May 7, 2014 without withdrawing their concurrence, had imploded. They had tried to obstruct and prevent the Central Government’s appointment by refusing to relieve the second respondent and let her join the posting,” the High Court said while criticising the State for relying on a petition in the Supreme Court challenging her selection when the same was not a reflection on Ms. Archana’s conduct.
The apex court had restrained her from performing the functions of Additional Director, CBI till July 14, 2014, but the petition was finally disposed of as infructuous as she was appointed as Director General, NCRB.
*This article has been corrected for a factual error.
