In the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
No- 311 of 2013
Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985
Amitabh Thakur Applicant/ Petitioner
Union of India and others Respondents
Description of documents relied upon
List of Dates and Events (separate)
Annexure No A1
Copy of DGP Office letter dated 17/01/2013
Annexure No A2
Copy of applicant’s letter dated 28/09/2012
Annexure No A3
Copy of DGP office letter dated 11/10/2012
Annexure No A4
Copy of applicant’s letter dated 15/10/2012
Annexure No A5
Copy of applicant’s letter dated 14/01/2013
Annexure No A6
Copy of applicant’s letter dated 18/01/2013
Annexure No A7
Copy of DGP office letter dated 25/02/2013
Annexure No A8
Lucknow (Amitabh Thakur)
Dated-15/07/2013 Applicant in Person
For use in Tribunal office
Date of filing
Or Date of receipt by post
In the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Union of India and others Respondents
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
S No Date Event
1. 2003-04 Applicant posted as SP Gonda
2. 28/07/2005 Enquiry Report by Sri A K Bishnoi
3. 28/09/2012 Applicant sends his representation
4. 11/10/2012 Applicant asked certain query
5. 15/10/2012 Applicant replies about the query
6. 14/01/2013 Applicant intimates about Press Meet
7. 17/01/2013 Applicant restrained from Press Meet
8. 18/01/2013 Applicant objects to asks for reasons for
the illegal restraint imposed
The Respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Police, UP have illegally restrained the applicant from vindicating his act and character as per the legal provisions prescribed under Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 as shall be explained in details in the OA. This restrain is all the more serious because it is curbing of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the citizen through Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution read along with the reasonable restraints imposed through Article 19(2).
This this matter is related not only with the infringement of legal rights provided to the applicant as a member of the All India Services but is also associated with the blatant and abject violation of his Fundamental Rights.
Hence this Original Application.
Lucknow (Amitabh Thakur)
Dated-15/07/2013 Applicant in Person
In the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Original Application No- of 2013
Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985
Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Tapeshwar Narayan Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (presently posted as SP, Rules and Manuals, Lucknow)
---------- Applicant/ Petitioner
1. Union of India through Secretary, Home, Government of India, New Delhi
2. State of UP, through the Principal Secretary (Home), Civil secretariat, Lucknow
3. Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, DGP Head quarters, Lucknow
Detail of Application
1. Particulars of the order against which the application is made
The original Application (OA, for short) is being filed for quashing the inappropriate and illegal order dated 17/01/2013 (Annexure No A1) passed by Respondent No 3, Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh (DGP, UP for short) restraining the applicant from exercising his legal right enshrined in Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 (Conduct Rules, for short) of vindicating his acts and characters through Press as regards certain matter where the applicant had to face adverse criticism in the course of his official duty, possibly and allegedly at the instance of Respondent No 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh and thus in the process violating and curbing his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression provided in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This OA is also being filed to accordingly permit the applicant to avail his legal right stated in Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules, particularly in reference to the law enunciated in the Proviso to this Rule as regards the representation presented by the applicant on 28/09/2012. This OA is also being filed to pray for enquiry and subsequent suitable action against all those officers who went beyond the clear cut provisions of law, firstly to direct, suggest and pass the illegal order dated 17/01/2013 and secondly to keep on denying the applicant his above-mentioned legal and constitutional rights. Finally this OA is being filed to ask for suitable compensation as regards the blatantly illegal act of the respondents whereby they curbed the legal and (more importnatly) Fundamental Rights of the applicant, without any rhyme or reason, despite repeated prayers and efforts made by the applicant in bringing the legal facts before them.
2. Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Tribunal
The applicant declares that the subject matter regarding which he wants redressal is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Tribunal as it is associated with the Conduct Rules of the applicant and comes very much under the realm of the Hon’ble Tribunal
The applicant further declares that the application is within the limitation period of one year of passing of an order prescribed in section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
4. Facts of the case
The facts of the case are given below
4.01 That the applicant is an officer of the Indian Police Service (UP Cadre) belonging to the 1992 batch, presently posted as SP (Rules and Manuals) at Lucknow.
4.02 That the applicant would like to humbly pray in the beginning itself that the matter being presented in this OA is not one which affects him materially or as regards any material benefit like pay, promotion, increment etc but is possibly much more serious than these material benefits because it is related with the Fundamental Right of the applicant associated with freedom of speech and expression, which has been deliberately, intentionally and illegally curbed and restrained by the respondents No 2 and 3 despite repeated efforts of the applicant in bringing the legal situation before them. Thus, the applicant is no less effected by the illegal act of the respondents, forcing him to file this OA where he prays not only for quashing of the illegal order passed by respondent No 3, presumably at the instance of respondent No 2 but also seeks enquiry into the entire matter and fixing of definite roles of officers found responsible for this illegal restrain and violation of the Fundamental rights of the applicant. Finally the applicant also prays for definite compensation in the matter for illegal and arbitrary restrain of his Fundamental Rights.
4.03 That the facts presented in the OA would make it very clear that from the beginning the respondents have been playing a callous and improper role as regards the applicant’s representation and the legal responsibility bestowed to them through Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules. This matter also shows the kind of high handedness often displayed by the superior authorities in dealing with the genuine and legal, though uncomfortable demands of the subordinate officers. This matter shows the scant respect for constitutional and legal mandates often shown by many senior officials, completely forgetting in their course of duty that they are also governed by rules and regulations and are not above law.
4.04 That the seriousness of the matter lies in the above-mentioned facts and it is these that forced the applicant to bring this issue, which many might consider trivial, non-materialist and non-beneficial, before this Hon’ble Tribunal because to the applicant this is a classic example of certain authorities making a mockery of law and he wants to present the case even while facing all the discomforts, efforts and pains associated with this process and also because the matter is related with one of the most precious gifts bestowed to all of us by the Constitution of India- the freedom of speech and expression, which has been illegal curtailed and violated in this particular case in an uncouth manner, through brazen callousness.
4.05 That this matter began on 28/09/2012 when the applicant sent a representation to the Principal Secretary (Home) through proper channel where he asked for permission to present certain facts before public through the use of Press/Media related with his posting as Superintendent of Police, Gonda in the year 2003-04 where he felt that his immediate superior officer the DIG of Devipatan Range got tried to frame him in false criminal case through an improper, incorrect and completely one-sided enquiry conducted by the then Additional SP, Gonda regarding alleged grant of Arms licence to criminal, anti-national and anti-social elements and where the applicant was completely exonerated in a further High-level enquiry conducted by Sri A K Bishnoi, IAS, Secretary, Technical Education Department, UP Government through his report dated 28/07/2005 where he had specially said that - ‘‘ इस सम्पूर्ण प्रकरण की छान-बीन के बाद यह तथ्य परिलक्षित होता है कि सभी मामलों में पुलिस अधीक्षक की संस्तुति उनके अधीनस्थ कर्मियों की संस्तुति पर आधारित थी तथा स्वयं अपने स्तर से उन्होंने कोई ऐसी संस्तुति नहीं की थी जो कि निचले स्तर से प्रस्तुत संस्तुति के विपरीत हो.” (i.e. after the entire enquiry, it gets concluded that the SP made all the recommendations only on the basis of the report that he had got from his subordinates and there was not a single case where his recommendation was different from that of the report presented by subordinate officers) , पुलिस अधीक्षक स्तर पर कदाचित ऐसा कोई माध्यम नहीं होता जिससे वह अलग से तथ्यों की जानकारी कर सके. अतः ऐसे मामलों में जिनमें आवेइक के आपराधिक इतिहास होने के बावजूद पुलिस द्वारा शस्त्र लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने हेतु संस्तुति की गयी है, उनमें भी श्री अमिताभ ठाकुर तत्कालीन पुलिस अधीक्षक को दोषी माना जाना उचित नहीं होगा.’(i.e. there is possibly no medium or instrumentality with the SP from where he might obtain facts independent from his subordinate police officers. Hence, even in those cases where Sri Amitabh Thakur recommended sanction of Arms licence to applicants with criminal antecedents, he shall be considered to be at fault) and even that- ‘‘ डा0 बी एन तिवारी द्वारा अपनी आख्या तथ्यों के आधार पर नहीं दी गयी और गैर-जिम्मेदाराना तरीके से निष्कर्ष निकाले गये.’ (Dr B N Tiwari, the enquiry officer did not present his report based on facts and he made his conclusions in an irresponsible manner). A copy of this representation dated 28/09/2012 is being attached as Annexure No A2.
4.06 That in this representation dated 28/09/2012, the applicant said that since the enquiry report of Sri A K Bishnoi had completely exonerated him and even the State government only warned him for administrative negligence through its order dated 16/05/2006 and did not agree with the recommendations of the DIG and the enquiry report of the Additional SP which had declared the applicant to be criminally liable for his acts and had tried to frame him in serious criminal cases, he had been seeking enquiry into the roles of the DIG and the Additional SP in presenting their false report with the ill-intent of framing the applicant in a very serious criminal case but the State government was not heeding to his prayers.
4.07 That the representation also said that the enquiry report of the DIG and Additional SP had found their way in many newspapers and magazines, resulting in serious indictment of the applicant’s character and personality and huge personal, emotional, social and administrative loss to him, hence he sought vindication of his character through the provisions given in Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct ) Rules, 1968 (Conduct Rules, for short)
4.08 That Rule of the Conduct Rules says –“17. Vindication of acts and character of members of the Service:—No member of the Service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or attack of a defamatory character.
Provided that if no such sanction is conveyed to by the Government within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the request, the member of the service shall be free to assume that the sanction sought for has been granted to him.
Explanation.—Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a member of the Service from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity. Provided that he shall submit a report to the Government regarding such action.
4.09 That what the above Rule says is that every member of the All India Service (like the applicant) has the right to take recourse to the Press for the vindication of official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or attack of a defamatory character if he gets the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press
4.10 That it also says that if the Government fails to convey its decision (including its sanction) within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the request, then this sanction shall be deemed to be granted.
4.11 That the applicant presented his representation on 28/09/2012 to the proper channel, viz. the Director General of Police Office, Uttar Pradesh, through which, as an IPS officer, he has been directed to make all his correspondence with the State government. Since the DGP office is the only designated medium for the applicant for any correspondence with the Government, thus the moment the applicant produced his representation on 28/09/2012, the letter would suo-motu be presumed to have been received by the State Government because the applicant cannot correspond directly with the State government and need necessarily correspond with the State government through his Directorate or the Head of his Office (if directed to correspond through the Head of the Office) and thus for him the date of receipt of the representation begins on the date his representation under Rule 17 is received by the Directorate or the Head of his Office.
4.12 That thus after the receipt of the representation on 28/09/2012, the State government had 12 weeks to decide over it and to grant sanction or to refuse the request.
4.13 That from the date of receipt on 28/09/212 this period of 12 weeks ended on 21/12/2012
4.14 That thus the State government lost any authority to have any say in this matter after the lapse of 12 weeks on 21/12/2012.
4.15 That but in this case, the DGP Office instead of immediately forwarding and placing the matter before the State government, as was expected from it, made a completely unwarranted move. Through its letter dated 11/10/2012 (i.e. almost after 2 weeks) it sent a letter to the IG (Rules and Manuals), UP who is presently the Head of the office in Rules and Manual Wing where the applicant is posted, making a very unusual query- “Kindly ask Sri Thakur under which provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules of 1968 is he seeking permission to vindicate his position?” This letter also asked the applicant to provide a copy of the Rule or the Government order. A copy of this letter dated 11/10/2012 is being attached as Annexure No A3.
4.16 That this certainly was a completely unwarranted query because being the Police Headquarters and being the repository of all service related matters, rules and regulations for IPS officers, the DGP office was presumed to have known about the concerned Rule and should not be expected to ask the applicant himself what the Rule was. Hence, among other things, it also needs to be kindly enquired why and by whom was such an unwarranted and improper query made and the officers responsible for this impropeity need to be penalized for their lack of knowledge of law and their lack of common sense because the letter clearly mentioned that permission was being sought under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules.
4.17 That the applicant, immediately through his letter dated 15/10/2012, stated once again that he was seeking vindication of his act and character under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules, a fact which had very clearly stated in his original representation dated 28/09/2012 itself. A copy of the applicant’s letter dated 15/10/2012 is being attached as Annexure No A4.
4.18 That when the required/mandated 12 weeks in Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules from the date of submission on 28/09/2012 (and even after 15/10/2012) was over, the applicant sent a letter dated 14/01/2013 stating that since the 12 weeks period is over, hence the required sanction is deem to have been granted and thus the applicant can presume the grant of the sanction. Hence he would present his facts/views through a proposed Press Meet on 18/01/20013 as per the provisions of Rule 17. A copy of the applicant’s letter dated 14/01/2013 is being attached as Annexure No A5.
4.19 That to this the applicant got the impugned letter/order dated 17/01/2013 from the DGP office which said that the matter was under consideration before the State government and hence he was directed not to organize the proposed Press Meet on 18/01/2013. (Annexure No A1).
4.20 That this was certainly a legally incorrect order. This is because the State Government has right to decline permission under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules or to restrain interaction with Press only within the period of 12 weeks after the receipt of the application. Here, the mandated 12 weeks period had already passed much earlier on 21/12/2012. Thus, after the passing of this period, the respondents had no right to make any further instruction in this case because the Rule is very clear when it says-“Provided that if no such sanction is conveyed to by the Government within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the request, the member of the service shall be free to assume that the sanction sought for has been granted to him.”
4.21 That it may kindly be seen that this Proviso was Inserted vide Notification No.11017/27/93—AIS(III) dated 13.01.1995 (GSR No. 52 dt. 04.02.1995).
4.22 That it seems quite probable that such a Proviso needed to be introduced to save the All India Service officers from a precarious position in which the Government would prefer to take no decision on the application for ever and would just sit idle over it. In such conditions, the applicant would be left with no legal remedy and he would have to wait for eternity without getting any response from the concerned Government.
4.23 That with the introduction of the mandatory 12 weeks period, now the officer’s interests have been duly safeguarded so that either the government refutes such permission by stating certain reasons or it grants permission but whatever decision the Government wants to take, it has to be taken within the prescribed 12 weeks. The wordings of Rule 17 are very clear and leave no one in doubt that once this 12 week period is over, the Government loses any right to stop an officer in his endeavour to vindicate his acts or character.
4.24 That yet despite this clear provision of law, the Respondents No 2 and 3 stopped the applicant from vindicating his position after the passing of the 12 weeks period.
4.25 That this act of the respondents is blatantly against the statutory provision under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules as well as the Constitutional provision as granted under Article 19(1)(a) regarding freedom of speech and expression.
4.26 That this freedom of speech and expression has been moderated/regulated in clause (2) of Article 19 which says- “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
4.27 That the restrictions imposed by the State on the All India Service Officers through various Rules like Rule 6 (Connection with Press and Radio), 7 (Criticism of Government) and Rule 17 (Vindication of acts and character) etc of the Conduct Rules are the laws framed for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.
4.28 That but going beyond the laws framed in this behalf to stop the freedom of speech and expression of an individual (including a member of the All India Services like the applicant) is certainly completely unconstitutional and is the denial of Fundamental Rights.
4.29 That there cannot be a more serious impropriety that denial of Fundamental Right to an individual as is happening in this particular case
4.30 That the applicant immediately wrote to Ms Tanuja Srivastava, IG (Karmik) a letter dated 18/01/2013 where he stated that the 12 months period stated in Rule 17 has already elapsed and hence he seems to have a legal right to present his facts through the Media. Hence, the applicant prayed Ms Srivastava to intimate him about the legal provisions based on which she had restricted him from vindicating his position, after the passing of the required 12 weeks. A copy of the letter dated 18/01/2013 is being attached as Annexure No A6.
4.31 That the applicant sent reminder letters on 20/02/2013, 28/02/2013, 05/03/2013 and 15/05/2013.
4.32 That the applicant has so far got only a letter dated 25/02/2013 from the DGP office saying that his letters had been forwarded to the State government and the moment the State government takes any decision in this matter, it will be intimated to him. A copy of this letter from the State Government dated 25/02/2013 is being attached as Annexure No A7.
4.33 That thus as things stand today, despite having presented the representation under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules on 28/09/2012 and responding to the query (though irrelevant, improper and unwarranted) on 15/10/2012, the respondents have not only kept the matter pending, what is worse is that they have even illegally superseded the provisions of law as prescribed in the Proviso to Rule 17 by stopping the applicant from interacting with Press even after the strictly mandated period of 12 weeks.
4.34 That even after the IG (Karmik) letter dated 17/01/2013 restraining the applicant from the Press Meet, around six months have passed and the State government is yet to take any decision in the applicant’s representation submitted on 28/09/2012. Thus, while the Rule 17 says that whatever decision has to be taken by the State government within 12 weeks, here on the one hand the applicant has been illegally stopped by the respondents from using his legal right granted under Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules after the mandated period of 12 weeks, on the other the State government has not taken any decision in the matter even after a passage of many more weeks than the stipulated 12 weeks.
4.35 That a few facts that the applicant obtained from the Right to Information state that the impugned order dated 17/01/2013 came after the alleged telephonic conversation between Ms Tanuja Srivastava, IG (Karmik), DGP Office and Sri J P Gupta, Secretary (Home), UP Government. As per this RTI information, keeping the sensitivity of the matter in mind, Ms Tanuja Sriuvastava called Sri J P Gupta on phone where Sri J P Gupta “expressed his view” that the applicant be directed at the level of the Director General office not to hold the Press Meeting on 18/01/2013. A copy of the Notesheet presenting these facts is being attached as Annexure No A8.
4.36 That based on this “advice” or “view” of Sri Gupta, Ms Srivastava immediately took the sanction of the Director General of Police after recommendation of the ADG (Karmik), who without going into the legality of the entire matter and without taking into consideration the complete facts approved the recommendation of Ms Srivastava that the applicant be directed not to hold the Press Meeting.
4.37 That during this process Sri J P Gupta, Ms Tanuja Srivastava, ADG (Karmik) and the DGP, UP never for once tried to understand the nuances involved in the matter and the fact that the matter was cioncerned with Fundamental Right of speech and expression of an individual, who other than being a member of the All India Service, is also a citizen of this Nation, enjoying the right bestowed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as much as any one else.
4.38 That as regards Fundamental Rights including Right to freedom of speech and expression, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been very sensitive from the very beginning. As early as in 1951, in Ram Singh vs The State Of Delhi And others (Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 270, 1951 SCR 451), the Hon’ble Supreme Court said- “But in every case it is the rights which are fundamental, not the limitations; and 'it is the duty of this Court and of all courts in the land to guard and defend these rights jealously. It is our duty and privilege to see that rights which were intended to be fundamental are kept fundamental and to see that neither Parliament nor the executive exceed the bounds within which they are confined by the Constitution when given the power to impose a restricted set of fetters on these freedoms; and in the case of the executive, to see further that it does not travel beyond the powers conferred by Parliament. We are here to preserve intact for the peoples of India the freedoms which have now been guaranteed to them and which they have learned through the years to cherish, to the very fullest extent of the guarantee, and to ensure that they are not whittled away or brought to nought either by Parliamentary legislation or by executive action.”
4.39 That in Dharam Dutt & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors ( (2004) 1 SCC 712), the Hon’ble Court clearly stated- “Article 19 confers fundamental rights on citizens. The rights conferred by Article 19(1) are not available to and cannot be claimed by any person who is not and cannot be a citizen of India. A statutory right __ as distinguished from a fundamental right __ conferred on persons or citizens is capable of being deprived of or taken away by legislation. The fundamental rights cannot be taken away by any legislation; a legislation can only impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right.” It also said-“Out of the several rights enumerated in clause (1) of Article 19, the right at sub-clause (a) is not merely a right of speech and expression but a right to freedom of speech and expression.”
4.40 That In re Arundhati Roy (AIR 2002 SC 1375), the Hon’ble Supreme Court said- “Freedom of speech and expression, so far as they do not contravene the statutory limits as contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, are to prevail without any hindrance” while in Union Of India & Ors. vs The Motion Picture Association & others ( AIR 1999 SC 2334) it said- “Undoubtedly, free speech is the foundation of a democratic society. A free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints, dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing view points, debating and forming one shown views and expressing them, are the basic indicia of a free society. This freedom alone makes it possible for people to formulate their own views and opinions on a proper basis and to exercise their social, economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner. Restraints on this right, therefore, have been jealously watched by the courts."
4.41 That award of compensation in violation of Fundamental Rights was widely discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Nilabati Behera Aliaslalit vs State Of Orissa And Ors (Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1960, 1993 SCR (2) 581) as-“2.01. Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings. 2.02. Enforcement of the constitutional right and grant of redress embraces award of compensation as part of the legal consequences of its contravention. 2.03.. A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection, of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution against the applicant regarding his alleged role in facilitating grant of Arms licence to criminal and anti-social elements.
4.42 That this is one of those cases where the Fundamental Right of Freedom of speech and expression has been taken away illegally and improperly and hence the applicant deserves to be suitably compensated for it.
4.43 That thus left with no other officious remedy available to him, the applicant is left with no other option than to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal
5. Grounds for relief with legal provisions
a. Because Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 related with Vindication of acts and character of members of the Service clearly states:—“No member of the Service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or attack of a defamatory character.”
b. Because the above Rule also says- “Provided that if no such sanction is conveyed to by the Government within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the request, the member of the service shall be free to assume that the sanction sought for has been granted to him”
c. Because the applicant presented his application under Rule 17 on 28/09/2012
c. Because the stipulated 12 weeks period ended on 21/12/2012
d. Because after this 12 weeks period, the respondents had no right to restrain the applicant from exercising his legal and constitutional right
e. Because Right to freedom of expression and speech is a much cherished right and the Hon’ble Courts have jealously and vigorously guarded these rights
f. Because in this case through the impugned order dated 17/01/2013, the respondents have restrained and curbed the legal and fundamental rights of the applicant in an illegal manner
6. Details of the remedies exhausted
The applicant declares that there are no methods devised in the service laws to get the impugned order dated 17/01/2013 corrected and the illegality done through this impugned order is already done, with no other alternate remedy of any nature available other than approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. Matter not previously filed or pending with any other court
The applicant further declares that he had not filed any other application, writ petition or suit, regarding the matter in respect of which this application has been made, before any Court or any other authority or any other Bench of the Tribunal nor any such application, writ petition or suit is pending before any of them.
8. Relief (s) sought
In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the applicant prays for the following relief(s)—
(a) to kindly quash the impugned illegal order dated 17/01/2013 (Annexure No A1) passed by respondent No 3, presumably at the instance of respondent No 2 as being against the provisions of Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 and Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India
(b) to kindly direct the respondents to permit the applicant to avail his legal rights under Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 as regards the representation dated 28/09/2012 (Annexure No A2), particularly in compliance of the Proviso enumerated in this Rule regarding presumption of deemed permission after passage of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation
(c) to kindly direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the entire matter, right from the presentation of the representation on 28/09/2012 to returning back the letter with unwarranted query on 11/10/2012 to passing of impugned order dated 17/01/2013 to complete inaction till date as regards the applicant’s representation dated 28/09/2012 so as to fix definite roles of officers found responsible for their unwarranted, improper and illegal roles in this process which resulted in illegal restrain and violation of the Fundamental rights of the applicant.
(d) to kindly direct the respondents to grant a definite compensation in the matter for illegal and arbitrary restrain of his Fundamental Rights
9. Interim order, if any, prayed
10. In the event of application being sent by registered post, it may be stated whether the applicant desires to have oral hearing at the admission stage and if so, he shall attach a self-addressed Postcard or Inland letter, at which intimation regarding the date of hearing could be sent to him Not Applicable
11. Particulars of the Bank Draft/ Postal Order filed in respect of the application fee
a. Name of the Bank/ Post Office ,
b. Bank draft/ Postal Order No
d. Amount Rs. fifty only
12. List of enclosures Annexure Nos A-1 to A-8
Dated- 15/07/2012 Signature of the Applicant
I, Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Tapeshwar Narayan Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow [presently posted as SP, Rules and Manuals, Lucknow], do hereby verify that contents of paragraphs 1, 4 and 6 to 12 are true to my personal knowledge and paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 are believed to be true on legal advice and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
Dated -15/07/2012 Signature of the applicant
Dated -15/07/2012 Signature of the applicant