Former IPS officer Rajnish Rai has moved the Supreme Court against an order issued by the Gujarat High Court earlier this month holding that the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) Ahmedabad bench does not have jurisdiction to hear his challenge to the latest showcause notice and charge memo issued to him by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for alleged “misconduct” in relation to a purported fake encounter probe in 2017. A division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, while issuing a notice to the Centre on Friday, recorded that on July 7 – the next date of hearing – the bench “shall hear the question of territorial jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to entertain the petitioner’s application”. Rai, a 1992-batch IPS officer, was served with a showcause notice by the Centre in December 2021 following a preliminary inquiry in regard to an incident in 2017 when Rai was posted as inspector general with CRPF in the north eastern sector in Shillong. In March 2017, two persons were killed in an encounter in Assam. After contrary reports came to light on the genuineness of the encounter, Rai had directed the DIG of CRPF, Bongaigaon Range, to conduct an inquiry. The DIG’s report had confirmed the encounter to be fake, following which Rai had recommended the DG to conduct a detailed inquiry by an independent agency. In June 2017, Rai, who is now an assistant professor at IIM-A, was transferred and posted as IG of CIAT School in Chittoor. A preliminary inquiry was initiated against Rai by the Union government and in December 2021, a showcause notice was served to him by the Centre. Rai had then moved Delhi High Court, which held in January this year that he can approach the CAT with his grievance, without explicitly mentioning the jurisdictional bench of the CAT. In February, Rai approached the Ahmedabad bench of CAT challenging the preliminary inquiry instituted against him as well as the December 2021 showcause notice but the bench did not entertain the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Centre also slapped Rai with a chargesheet in February for “misconduct” in relation to the 2017 incident, alleging that Rai carried out a “discreet inquiry” on the alleged fake encounters. Rai moved Gujarat HC seeking that it hold the Ahmedabad CAT bench to be the appropriate jurisdiction to decide on his service issues. A division bench of the HC on May 1 had said that the Ahmedabad CAT bench has “no jurisdiction to entertain” Rai’s petition and that the CAT had committed “no error” earlier by dismissing his plea. Following this, Rai has now moved SC, pointing out that the HC has erred in not appreciating and interpreting the provisions under the CAT (Procedure) Rules and that the cause of action of the departmental proceedings has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Ahmedabad CAT bench. Rai has said in his petition before the SC that the showcause notice shows a “complete no application of mind and a deliberate intent to cause harm” to him. He also submitted that MHA’s actions infringes on his legal rights for terminal benefits after being in service.
