2014 (11) TMI 997 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C - Held that - In the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondents had been dragging the matter for quite a long period thus causing prejudice to the applicant, the charge memo dated 12-2-2004 is vague, without any evidence and above all unexplained and inordinate delay has occurred in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and accordingly the punishment imposed vide impugned order is discriminatory, violative of natural principles of law and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the applicant. Accordingly we quash and set aside the same. In the result, O.A. No. 1354 of 2011 is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the arrears due to the applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, each and every act of arbitrariness cannot be termed to be illegal. There must be a link which indicates that the act of arbitrariness was owing to any criminal intent on the part of the persons accused. Finding no merit in the revision, this criminal revision case stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of complaint under Sections 34, 120(B) read with Sections 161, 193, 196 and 409 IPC by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; Allegations of lack of promotion leading to criminal acts; Repeal of certain sections of IPC under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Basis of complaint on findings of Central Administrative Tribunal; Orders passed in favor of the petitioner in O.A. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 2011; Allegations of harassment and discrimination; Dismissal of the complaint and the requirement of criminal intent for illegal acts.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a revision against the dismissal of her complaint alleging offenses under various sections of the IPC by 19 persons in secretarial and similar ranks. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. stating that there was no allegation of common intention or criminal acts by the accused. The magistrate noted that the complainant's primary grievance was lack of promotion in 1997, but found that the denial of promotion was based on fitness criteria followed for others as well. Additionally, it was highlighted that the relevant sections of IPC had been repealed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and no corruption allegations were made against the accused. The dismissal was based on the lack of evidence supporting criminal intent or breach of trust by the officials.

2. The complaint was based on the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 2011, where orders were passed in favor of the petitioner regarding denial of promotion and disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal observed that the delay in promotion and disciplinary actions against the petitioner was discriminatory and against natural justice principles. The orders directed the regularization of services and promotion of the petitioner within specific time frames. The tribunal found the charge memo vague and the punishment disproportionate, leading to the quashing of the same. The petitioner's accusations of criminal offenses were rooted in these tribunal findings.

3. The Additional Solicitor General argued that not all acts of arbitrariness amount to illegality without evidence of criminal intent. The court found no merit in the revision and dismissed the criminal revision case. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing a connection between arbitrariness and criminal intent for actions to be deemed illegal. The dismissal was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of criminal acts by the accused individuals.