A division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on Monday (May 1) rejected a plea by former IPS officer Rajnish Rai asking the court to declare that the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) Ahmedabad Bench is the appropriate jurisdiction to decide his challenge against an inquiry conducted against him, and a subsequent show-cause notice that was issued in 2021. Justices Vipul Pancholi and H D Suthar said in their order that “the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench has no jurisdiction to entertain” Rai’s petition, and that the CAT Ahmedabad Bench had committed “no error” earlier by dismissing his plea. The 58-year-old officer has had a long battle with the establishment going back several years. First, who is Rajnish Rai and why is he important? Rai belongs to the IPS batch of 1992. He was originally of the Odisha cadre, which was changed to the Gujarat cadre in 1997. He shot to prominence in 2007 when, as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) CID (Crime), Rai arrested fellow IPS officers D G Vanzara (now retired) and Rajkumar Pandian of the Gujarat cadre, and Dinesh MN of the Rajasthan cadre in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh alleged fake encounter case, in which Union Home Minister Amit Shah — who was a Minister in the government of then Chief Minister Narendra Modi at the time — was also arrested. Gangster Shaikh was shot and killed in an alleged fake encounter by a team of Gujarat and Rajasthan Police in November 2005. Three days later, Shaikh’s wife Kausar Bi was also killed, allegedly by police, and her body was burnt and disposed of. All 22 accused in the case were acquitted in December 2018. So where does Rai come in? Rai has argued that “the arrest of three IPS officers created a lot of bitterness between the petitioner and the government of the day”. In 2018, Rai applied for voluntary retirement, but it was not cleared by the Centre, and he was instead placed under suspension. The IPS civil list continues to list him as an officer under suspension and on deputation to the Centre. In May 2019, Rai joined IIM-Ahmedabad as assistant professor, Public Systems Group. In July 2019, the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (now Ministry of Education) wrote to IIM-A, asking why Rai had been employed when he was under suspension as per government records. Notably, the Union Home Ministry had notified the MHRD that the Centre had not approved Rai’s application for voluntary retirement. After the then IIM-A director defended the institute’s move to recruit Rai, the MHRD wrote a second letter, which led Rai to move the Gujarat High Court seeking protection. The court directed both sides to maintain the status quo, effectively stopping the government from interfering with Rai’s employment with IIM-A. In February 2023, the MHA issued him a fresh charge memo, the third after the ones in 2017 and 2019. The 2017 charge memo was stayed by a Hyderabad Bench of the CAT in October 2017; the tribunal observed at the time that the memo was on “trivial matters” and that “the charges do not relate to integrity of the petitioner”. And what is this latest case about? This is about an incident in the Northeast and its fallout, and Rai’s continuing tussle with the government as a result. This too started with an alleged fake encounter. Rai was posted as Inspector General with the CRPF in the North Eastern Sector at Shillong from May 2015 onward. In 2017, he directed the DIG, CRPF, Bongaigaon Range, to conduct an inquiry into an encounter in which two persons were killed. Rai took action following contradictory reports about the genuineness of the encounter. The DIG’s report confirmed that the encounter was fake. Rai then sent a recommendation to the DG, CRPF to order a detailed inquiry or investigation by an independent agency. Two months after he sent the recommendation, Rai was transferred to Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. In June 2017, it was reported that an IPS officer named Ashok Prasad, who was then an Adviser to the MHA, would carry out an inquiry into the role of Rai regarding the procedural aspects of the “discreet enquiry” conducted by him. In August 2017, Rai moved the principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi, challenging his transfer to Chittoor and the institution of the preliminary enquiry against him in the matter of the alleged fake encounter. The Bench dismissed his petition on the grounds that (i) his challenge to the transfer had become infructuous after he had joined his new post, and (ii) the challenge to the preliminary enquiry did not hold since no order indicating the initiation of such an enquiry had been placed on record before the Tribunal. In October 2017, Rai moved the Delhi HC, challenging the dismissal of his plea by the principal Bench of CAT. In 2018, the HC directed the MHA to file an affidavit on the status of the preliminary enquiry against Rai. The MHA submitted that the preliminary enquiry had not been finalised, and that it would apprise the HC of the final outcome of the enquiry as soon as it is finalised. In December 2021, the MHA served a show-cause notice on Rai, alleging various procedural irregularities in the conduct of the preliminary enquiry into the alleged fake encounter of March 2017. After Rai moved the Delhi HC seeking a stay on the notice, the court ordered the MHA to maintain status quo. In January 2023, the Delhi HC disposed of the matter, observing that the issuance of the show-cause notice constituted a fresh cause of action, and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance with the CAT. But it did not specify the particular bench of CAT where Rai could apply. In February 2023, Rai moved before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Centre, and a declaration from the Bench that the preliminary enquiry was conducted without the authority of law. Rai also sought the quashing and setting aside of the show-cause notice of December 2021, and asked that the Centre be directed not to take any disciplinary action against him pursuant to the said show-cause notice. However, the CAT Bench refused to entertain the plea, citing the lack of jurisdiction. A review petition was filed before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, but it was dismissed as being non-maintainable. Now, the Gujarat HC has upheld this order. Meanwhile, also in February, the MHA served a chargesheet for misconduct in this case to Rai. In March, Rai challenged it before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench. The challenge is currently pending. What legal remedy is available to Rai now that the Gujarat HC has declined to provide him relief? Rai can move the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat HC’s order. He can also approach the principal Bench of the CAT at New Delhi challenging the fresh cause of action spurred by the latest inquiry and subsequent show-cause notice of December 2021. He can also approach the Guwahati Bench of CAT, as he was posted in Shillong when the alleged fake encounter occurred, and which led to Rai recommending a detailed inquiry or investigation by an independent agency, which then led to the fresh cause of action by the MHA against him. Is this all, or is Rai contesting any other matter as well? In August 2018, Rai had applied for retirement on November 30 that year. This was rejected by the MHA. The government refused to retire him stating “he was not clear from the vigilance angle”, and cited an August 2017 chargesheet served on him by the Centre on grounds of departmental misconduct, as well as three preliminary enquiries against him that were pending in Gujarat. When Rai proceeded on retirement on November 30, he was asked to re-join immediately. In December 2018, Rai moved the CAT Ahmedabad Bench, challenging the central government’s rejection of his application seeking Voluntary Retirement from Services (VRS). That same month, Rai was placed under suspension by the government. In January 2019, the MHA served a chargesheet on him for “misconduct”, for allegedly handing over charge of office without authority and proceeding to abdicate office without permission of the competent authority. Rai challenged both the chargesheet and the suspension order before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench as well. In January 2019, the CAT Ahmedabad Bench granted him interim relief by restraining the respondent government authorities from taking a final decision regarding disciplinary proceedings against him. A final decision on that petition, however, remains pending before the CAT Ahmedabad Bench.
