HC quashes CBI letter to Chief Secy against top Nagaland Police officer

Morung Express News
Kohima | June 24

The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench has “set aside and quashed” a letter, issued by the Superintendent of Police, CBI asking the Nagaland Chief Secretary to obtain explanation from Nagaland Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) Sandeep Tamgadge on a memorandum of “charges issued against” him.

The CBI letter, dated March 4, 2020, referred to an earlier letter dated February 20, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

However, the officer in a writ petition challenged the legality and validity of the March 4 letter contending that the charges in the letter have already been responded to by the petitioner in a written reply on December 15, 2017.

Tamgadge is an IPS officer, Nagaland cadre, 2001 batch, and the case pertains to the early 2010s when he was on a central deputation with the CBI.

Background of the case
As per the judgement issued by Justice Robin Phukan on June 23, the case pertains to a time when Tamgadge was the Head of Branch (HoB)/SP, Anti-Corruption Branch in Nagpur. During his tenure, a case was registered on September 12, 2013 against an Income Tax Officer, Khamgaon and a businessman was identified as the “conduit” for receiving illegal receipt on behalf of the officer.

During investigation, a search led by the then Deputy SP, CBI, Nagpur was conducted at the IT officer’s residence on October 2, 2013, leading to seizure of currency, gold ornaments etc in the presence of search witness (the businessman).

The Deputy SP on October 4 submitted a proposal to keep the sized items in the official bank locker maintained by the CBI, Nagpur at Punjab National Bank. On July 22, 2014, when a Special Court ordered the release of the seized items, CBI officials noticed discrepancies in the gold jewellery and the same was informed to Tamgadge.

Tamgadge reported the case to the Head of Zone (HoZ), Bhopal and directed an Investigating Officer to redeposit the said gold jewellery in the locker. When the Deputy SP was summoned to clarify, he could not explain the discrepancies and Tamgadge submitted a written complaint registering a case of missing of gold, jewellery etc.

After completion of its investigation, the CBI, AC-III, New Delhi sent a report to the Government of Nagaland with a copy endorsed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi.

The CBI report, besides sanctioning prosecution against the Deputy SP, also recommended Regular Departmental Action (RDA) initiated against Tamgadge under relevant AIS (Disciplinary & Conduct) Rules.

Thereafter, a memorandum of charges was issued against him on 11/12/2017 by the Special Secretary, Government of Nagaland at the instance of the CBI. Tamgadge gave his explanation to the charges in a letter (15.12.2017) refuting “each and every charge levelled against him with a cogent reason.”

Accordingly, the State Government and the competent authority wrote to the DIG, CBI, New Delhi on February 1, 2018 informing that the petitioner’s reply was found “just and fair and the allegations were not substantiated.”

However, the petitioner was charged with a letter dated June 15, 2020 by the Nagaland Police acting on the letter issued by CBI on March 4, 2020 to the State Chief Secretary seeking “explanations from the petitioner” with respect to certain charges of misconduct in the Memorandum of Charges, dated 11.12.2017.

The letter stated that while the CBI recommendation for departmental action against the officer was forwarded to CVC for first stage advice, the latter had observed that the “version/explanation of charged officer has not been obtained.”

Consequently, it requested the State Government to obtain the ‘version/explanation’ within 30 days of receipt of communication and forward the same to the CBI for “further necessary action.”

In the meantime, the petitioner also filed an RTI and got information that the procedure was completed and the petitioner was “exonerated from the alleged charges.”

Accordingly, being aggrieved by the March 4, 2020 letter, the petitioner approached the Court challenging the act of the “Union respondent” on the ground that he had already submitted his explanation to all the charges in the earlier reply and prayed for quashing the letter.

Court proceedings and ruling
During the hearing, the petitioner’s (Tamgadge) counsel submitted that the March 4 letter “is tainted with arbitrariness, irrational and with mala fide intention and the same is not in conformity with the statutory as well as constitutional norm and also contrary to the principles of administrative fair play.”

The counsel further stated that the petitioner had furnished his replies to all charges and the same was duly considered by the Government of Nagaland and had already exonerated the officer. It was further contended that the charges mentioned in both letters are the same, and the respondents had “no ground to issue the impugned letter.”

It mentioned that the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 also stipulates a maximum period of 6 months for conducting any enquiry or investigation and the letter is barred by time.

The Standing Counsel had no objection to the quashing of the letter and submitted that if the petitioner is not willing to submit his reply again, the respondent authorities may consider the explanation submitted by him earlier (15/12/2017) and proceed to take further action.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the Nagaland Government submitted that the “State has already taken a decision upon the charges and the same had been communicated to the Ministry of Home Affairs and it has nothing to do with the impugned letter.”

The MHA and CVC and the CBI in their affidavit-in-opposition “denied each and every averment made in the petition.”

After hearing all submissions, Justice Phukan stated that the “charges in both the letters appear to be same.” As such, further explanation upon the same charges is uncalled for, he said, adding that the March 4 letter “appears to have been issued without application of mind and the same is not in conformity with administrative fair play.”

Finding “sufficient force” in the submission advanced by the petitioner and taking the view of the counsel for the CBI and State Government, the Court quashed the letter.

However, the respondent authority has the liberty to proceed with the explanation, so furnished by the petitioner in his December 15, 2017 reply, “if so warranted and advised,” the order added, disposing off the petition.

Source: https://morungexpress.com/hc-quashes-cbi-letter-to-chief-secy-against-top-nagaland-police-officer