Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1364 (BOM)

Dinkar Appa Desai v. State Of Maharashtra

2021-10-13

SANDEEP K.SHINDE

body2021
JUDGMENT SANDEEP K.SHINDE, J. - Apprehending arrest in connection with the Crime No.83 of 2021 registered with CBD, Belapur police station for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( "Act of 1989 " for short), appellant is seeking pre-arrest bail. Thus, this Appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989. 2. Before adverting to the prosecution case, it may be noted that the appellant is RTI (Right to Information) activist; whereas the complainant is a 'Law Officer' with the City and Industrial Development Corporation ( 'CIDCO ' for short). 3. Whether, allegation, prima-facie, constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Act of 1989, is the only question arises for consideration. Section 3(1)(q) reads as under: "Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe." Back-ground facts and Prosecution case, is as under: 4. Complainant was enrolled as an Advocate, with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 1st October, 2001. She practised law for seven years and eleven months. Thereafter, in March, 2020 she was appointed as Assistant (Legal) in the Law and Judiciary Department of the State of Maharashtra. After which, her, name on the roll of the Bar Council was classified as non-practising advocate with effect from 8th March, 2010. In 2014, the CIDCO initiated recruitment process for filling up the posts of law officer for which educational qualification was graduate of any recognised university in any discipline and three years ' degree course in law of any recognised university or five years ' degree course from recognised university after twelfth standard. Ten years ' standing in any Court of Law was pre-requisite condition with a note that, preference would be given to, those who have worked in the legal department in public/private limited company. Out of two posts advertised, one was reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Complainant had applied for the said post in the 'Scheduled Caste' category. She was selected and appointed as 'Law Officer' in the 'Scheduled Caste' category on 28th day of July, 2014. Out of two posts advertised, one was reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Complainant had applied for the said post in the 'Scheduled Caste' category. She was selected and appointed as 'Law Officer' in the 'Scheduled Caste' category on 28th day of July, 2014. In September, 2019, appellant sought information from the CIDCO under the Right to Information Act, relating to complainant 's appointment as 'Law Officer'. He sought, a copy of an application preferred by the complainant for the post of Law Officer; her certificate of practice in law and her appointment letter. Information was declined to him. Whereafter he preferred an appeal on 14th October, 2019. In the meantime, applicant made 2nd application under the Right to Information Act on 23rd September, 2019. Besides, he sought information from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa relating to the complainant 's enrollment as an advocate and particulars relating thereto. Bar Council supplied the information on 11th November, 2019. After collecting the information, appellant made a representation, to the CIDCO on 14th February, 2020 seeking enquiry against the complainant on the ground that complainant was not qualified to be appointed as 'Law Officer' since she did not have requisite experience of ten years of practice in law. He alleged, the officers of the CIDCO intentionally concealed to divulge, the particulars of the complainant 's qualification and experience. Appellant, thus sought an enquiry against the complainant. Prayer in the representation was as under: "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." 5. Pursuant to the representation/complaint, on 18th February, the CIDCO informed the complainant that enquiry has been initiated against her. It appears, on 8th January, another representation was made to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the CIDCO to hold investigation relating to recruitment of complainant as 'Law Officer' in 'Scheduled Caste ' category, alleging that, complainant misrepresented the CIDCO that she was fulfilling required educational qualification, experience, age. It was alleged, that inadequate experience of complainant, has affected the work of Corporation, as was apparent from the quality of opinions given by her to the Corporation. It was alleged that Written Statements vetted by the complainant, as Law Officer in the SCS Civil Suit No.7 of 2017 was improper and, therefore, it was urged that disciplinary action be initiated against her. It was alleged that Written Statements vetted by the complainant, as Law Officer in the SCS Civil Suit No.7 of 2017 was improper and, therefore, it was urged that disciplinary action be initiated against her. Further, alleged, opinions given by the complainant and Written Statement vetted by her in the Court were not upto the mark and had caused loss to the CIDCO. Thus, prayed that strict investigation in the process of appointment of the complainant as 'Law Officer' in 'Scheduled Caste ' category be conducted ; initiate departmental inquiry against the complainant ; take criminal action for misrepresenting the CIDCO about her standing practice in the Court. Whereafter CIDCO initiated enquiry. In the inquiry although, the appellant was summoned, he chose not to remain present. Pending inquiry the provisional seniority list of the Law Officers' was sought to be modified. Complainant objected to the proposed modification of the seniority list. It appears from communication/ note-sheet dated 23rd June 2020 that due to false complaint made by the appellant, provisional seniority list of the Law Officers' was modified. It has affected the rights and conditions of the service of the complainant. Be that as it may, enquiry was concluded and all the allegations with regard to complainant's appointment as 'Law Officer' vis-a-vis her experience in law were found incorrect and false and as such the report was submitted by the enquiry Officer in February , 2021. A report concludes in the following terms: "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is complainant's case that the appellant by submitting false and frivolous information to the CIDCO relating to her qualification, experience in law, caused the CIDCO to hold enquiry against her knowing well that she was qualified to be appointed and belongs to scheduled caste and due to such false information, enquiry held, has caused, annoyance to her, within the meaning of clause (q) of subsection 1 of section 3 of the Act of 1989. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and the learned prosecutor for the state. Perused the complaint. 8. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and the learned prosecutor for the state. Perused the complaint. 8. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be stated that for the first time, appellant in this appeal, denied and disowned the representation dated 8th January 2019 made to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the CIDCO, pursuant to which disciplinary and criminal action was sought against the complainant. Learned counsel on instructions would submit, that the said representation/ complaint dated 8th January 2019 does not bear his signature, and unknown person had forged the representation. It is , therefore, argued that, if this representation/complaint is excluded from the consideration, no offence under the Act of 1989 could be said to be made out. In the context of these submissions, it may be stated in appeal memo this ground has not been set out although the order passed by the Sessions Court declining pre-arrest bail to the appellant makes reference to the complaint dated 8th January 2019. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed affidavit of the appellant disowning the complaint dated 8th January 2019. Be that as it may, assuming that this representation/ complaint was not made by the appellant, however, there is other material on record which in no uncertain terms suggest that the appellant knew that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste and was well aware that she was fulfilling requisite criteria for appointment as Law Officer. In spite of this, he made false complaint against her on 14th February 2020 which I have referred to hereinabove. Evidence on record, prima- facie, suggests that the appellant has misused the information collected under the Right to Information Act to cause annoyance to the complainant. Material on record shows that false information given by the appellant to the CIDCO caused an enquiry against her. Besides pending enquiry, complainant's seniority was also affected. Admittedly, the appellant had no business to challenge the recruitment process of the complainant. Yet, the material on record gives rise to suspect that the appellant intentionally made the false complaint at the behest of the third person, although he was not competing the complainant in the recruitment process as a Law Officer. Admittedly, the appellant had no business to challenge the recruitment process of the complainant. Yet, the material on record gives rise to suspect that the appellant intentionally made the false complaint at the behest of the third person, although he was not competing the complainant in the recruitment process as a Law Officer. The fact remains that at his instance enquiry that was initiated by the CIDCO, definitely had caused annoyance to the complainant. Thus, the allegations, prima-facie, constitute an offence under the Clause 3(1)(q) of the Act of 1989. 9. In consideration of the facts of the case and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, in my view appeal deserve no consideration. It is dismissed. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks continuation of the protection for two weeks. Protection is extended. The State shall not arrest the appellant for two weeks from today.