Delhi HC Holds Bihar Government Accountable For Victimising An IAS Officer's Life and Liberty [Read Judgment]

In the present case, the Officer was falsely implicated in a corruption case by the Vigilance Bureau of Bihar for fighting against the transport mafia in the state. After being acquitted of the corruption charges, he sought an inter-cadre transfer to Haryana under Rule 5(2) of IAS Cadre Rules, 1954, citing threat to his and his family's life and liberty. He had earlier asked for a bodyguard which was not provided for by the state government. After his request was denied by the central government on the basis of an IB report which concluded the absence of any threat perception, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the same. The Tribunal ordered the central government to reconsider the request and directed the state government to send its consent for the transfer to the central government. However, instead of sending the consent for inter-cadre transfer, the state government sent a consent for a central deputation, which was rejected by the latter on the ground of ineligibility of the candidate. Hence, the petition before the Delhi High court.

The Delhi High Court noted that the state government erred by relying on an IB report which was far removed from the ground reality. The report was based on inquiries made about any complaint filed by the Officer for an actual attack and the same is an inappropriate and unreasonable methodology to access threat perception. It said, 'Threat assessment has to be undertaken on the basis of the recent past incidents, and its assessment has to be done by those

assigned that task on a rational basis, by taking into account all the relevant and germane circumstances and past incidents.'

The court also highlighted the deliberate undermining of the Officer's life and liberty by the state government as evident from its history of handling his requests. He was not paid his salary, allowances or arrears, and his APAR rating was also brought down considerably. The state government also found a way to bypass the Tribunal's Order by sending its consent for central deputation instead of inter-cadre transfer knowing the same would eventually be rejected by the central government on the ground of ineligibility. The court said:

'The right to life and liberty is the most precious of all the fundamental rights because, if this right is not protected, all others will become meaningless. Can we shut our eyes to the situation on hand, and let the situation come to a stage, when an untoward incident actually occurs and, God forbid, harm is caused to the officer or to his family? In our view, if we do not act in such a case where the facts cry out for help, we would be failing in our constitutional duty'.

The court ordered the state government to pay compensation in tune of Rs. 5 lakh to the Officer by opining that Right to life and liberty is the most sacred right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.; thus, grant of compensation under Article 226 for violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 is an exercise which the High Court can undertake under Public Law jurisdiction, for penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability of a State, which has failed to discharge its public duty to protect its officer/citizen and his fundamental rights.

Along with this, the court ordered that the consent preferred by the state government for central deputation shall be treated as consent for the inter-state cadre. Although, the prerogative of deciding that cadre lies with the central government and the court can't issue direction for the same.

Click here to download the Judgment.