ASLESHA MEHTA vs All India Radio on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: (A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B)That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare the inaction on the part of the respondents regarding Non payment of legal expenses incurred by the husband of the applicant in defending CBI Court Proceedings, as mentioned in the communication dtd. 15/10/2019 of the respondents, claim submitted by the husband of the applicant on 21/7/2020 to the respondents. (C) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to settle/pay the claim of the husband of the applicant as mentioned in request/representation dtd. 21/7/2020 in pursuant to communication dtd. 15/10/2019 of the respondents. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: - 2.1 The applicant was serving as a Transmission Executive (TREX) in the office of Doordarshan Kendra, Ahmedabad. Her late husband, Shri Mihir Mehta, had served as Programme Executive with All India Radio and had retired from service. 2.2 The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case bearing RC- 2(A)/2008, which culminated in CBI Special Case No. 06/2009, pursuant to a reference concerning alleged irregularities relating to the official activities of the concerned officers. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and her late husband. 2.3 The CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad, by judgment dated 04.05.2019, acquitted Shri Mihir Mehta of the charges framed against him in CBI Special Case No. 06/2009. The applicant was also an accused in the said case. The subsequent procedural history of the proceedings P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No 160/2022

concerning the applicant and her late husband is reflected in the documents filed before this Tribunal. 2.4 It is further borne out from the record that disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated against Shri Mihir Mehta under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Following his death, the pending disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be closed by the competent authority on 02.06.2022. 2.5 In the meantime, the department had issued communications concerning the admissibility of legal expenses, TA for attending the CBI proceedings and the treatment of the relevant period as duty. In particular, the Directorate General of All India Radio, by its communication dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure A/1), referred to Supplementary Rules 153-A and 154 and indicated the conditions governing these claims. 2.6 Thereafter, a representation dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure A/2) was submitted by Shri Mihir Mehta seeking reimbursement of legal expenses, TA for attending the CBI proceedings at Ahmedabad and treatment of the period spent in attending those proceedings as duty. The claim for legal expenses referred to an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- stated to have been paid towards professional fees and related expenses in connection with the criminal case. 2.7 During the pendency of the matter, Shri Mihir Mehta passed away. The applicant, being his widow, pursued the claim before the respondent department.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant 3.1 Shri M.S. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has, in substance, contended that the claim arises from criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant and her late husband in relation to matters connected with their service. P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No 160/2022

3.2 Learned counsel has submitted that the criminal proceedings against Shri Mihir Mehta culminated in his acquittal by judgment dated 04.05.2019. It is contended that the outcome of the proceedings ought to have been given due consideration by the competent authority while examining the claim for reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred in defending the case. 3.3 It is further submitted that the claim for legal expenses was supported by the documents and representations placed before the department. The applicant, being the widow of the deceased employee, has pursued the claim made by her late husband and seeks consideration of the same in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. 3.4 Learned counsel has also contended that the claims for TA and treatment of the period spent in attending the CBI proceedings ought to be examined fairly and in the light of the applicable service rules. According to the applicant, the department cannot dispose of the claims merely by referring to a general restriction without properly considering the circumstances of the case and the relevant documents. 3.5 Learned counsel has further assailed the departmental decision on the ground that the representation has not resulted in the relief sought by the applicant. It is submitted that the competent authority ought to have considered the effect of the acquittal of Shri Mihir Mehta, the subsequent closure of the disciplinary proceedings following his death, and the nature of the claim raised by the applicant. 3.6 On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the OA be allowed and that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for settlement of the claim, together with the consequential reliefs sought in the application.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents 4.1 Per contra, Ms. R.R. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has opposed the OA and submitted that the claims made P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No 160/2022

by the applicant are governed by the applicable service rules, Supplementary Rules and departmental instructions. According to the respondents, the claims cannot be granted merely because the criminal proceedings against the deceased employee culminated in acquittal. 4.2 Learned counsel has submitted that the CBI case was registered following a reference by the departmental vigilance authorities concerning alleged irregularities which involved fraudulent means by way of cheating and abusing his official position causing huge loss to the department. The competent authority had accorded sanction for prosecution after considering the material available at the relevant time. It is, therefore, contended that the initiation of the proceedings cannot, merely by reason of the subsequent acquittal, be treated as unjustified for the purpose of reimbursement of legal expenses. CBI has filed an appeal in Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in this case. Parallel proceedings for major penalty were closed by the Department vide order dated 02.06.2022 due to his death. 4.3 It is further submitted that the claim for reimbursement of legal expenses requires examination under the applicable Government instructions and rules. The respondents have pointed out that the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- claimed by the applicant’s late husband was stated to comprise professional fees and miscellaneous charges, but the supporting invoice did not provide an adequate item-wise breakup. It was also contended that the applicant and her late husband were both accused in the same criminal case and that the documents did not clearly establish the portion of the fees attributable exclusively to the deceased employee. 4.4 Learned counsel has further relied upon the provisions of Supplementary Rule 153-A, as referred to in the departmental communication dated 15.10.2019, to contend that TA for attending the CBI proceedings is subject to the conditions stipulated therein, including the question of reimbursement of legal expenses by the P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No 160/2022

department. In the absence of fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, the claim for TA cannot be granted as a matter of course. The Supplementary Rule 153-A is reproduced herein below:

“A Government servant under suspension who is required to perform journey to attend the departmental enquiry may be allowed travelling allowance as for a journey on tour from his headquarters to the place where the departmental enquiry is held or from the place at which he has been permitted to reside during suspension to the place of enquiry, whichever is less. No travelling allowance will, however, be admissible if the enquiry is held at the outstation at his own request. Note: His travelling allowance will be regulated by the grade to which he belonged prior to his suspension” 4.5 With regard to the claim for treating the period spent in attending the CBI proceedings as duty, learned counsel has relied upon Supplementary Rule 154 and the departmental communications indicating that such periods are not automatically to be treated as duty and that the employee may be required to apply for earned leave or another admissible kind of leave, failing which the period may be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules. The Supplementary Rule 154 is reproduced herein below: The following provisions apply to a Government servant who is summoned to give evidence in a criminal case, a case before a court martial, a civil case to which Government is a party or a departmental inquiry held by a properly constituted authority. Provided that the facts as to which he is to give evidence have come to his knowledge in the discharge of his public duties –

(i) He may draw travelling allowance as for a journey on tour attaching to his bill a certificate of attending given by the court or other authority which summoned him.

(ii) When he draws such travelling allowance, he may not accept any payment of his expenses from the court or authority. Any fees which may be deposited in the court for the travelling and subsistence allowance of the witness must be credited to Government.

(iii) If the court in which he gives evidence is situated within eight kilometers of his headquarters and no travelling allowance is, therefore, admissible for the journey, he may, if he be not in receipt of permanent travelling allowance, accept, such payment of actual travelling expenses as the court may make. Note: A Government servant summoned to give evidence while on leave is entitled to travelling allowance this rule from and to the place from which he is summoned as if he were on duty” P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No 160/2022

4.6 Learned counsel has also referred to the constitutional and administrative requirements governing consideration of claims for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in defending proceedings relating to official acts, including the requirement of consultation with the Union Public Service Commission where applicable under Article 320(3)(d) of the Constitution of India. 4.7 It is further submitted that the department has considered the representation and issued a speaking order dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure R/5). The respondents, therefore, contend that no ground has been made out for interference by this Tribunal and pray that the Original Application be dismissed.

5. Applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the OA. 5.1 Further, applicant submitted that the respondents’ averments regarding consultation with the UPSC require consideration. It was contended that the husband of the applicant had submitted his claim on 21.07.2020, which was duly received by the respondents, but the claim had allegedly not been processed thereafter. The respondents should, therefore, disclose on affidavit the steps taken for consultation with the UPSC in relation to the said claim. 5.2 It was further submitted that Shri R. Z. Shaikh, who represented the applicant’s late husband before the CBI Court, indicated that he had defended the case of Late Shri Mihir V. Mehta only. Accordingly, the husband of the applicant had submitted a claim of ₹9,00,000/-. 5.3 Learned counsel further contended that the respondents had referred to an alleged request made by the Director General, All India Radio, to the CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar, without placing supporting material on record, and therefore sought production of the relevant documents before the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the appeal preferred by the CBI against the judgment dated 04.05.2019 in Special Case No. 06/2009 was pending before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and that P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No 160/2022

the filing or pendency of the said appeal had no relevance to the claim of the applicant’s husband.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the pleadings and the submissions, the following points arise for determination:

(i) Whether the communication dated 15.10.2019 confers a right to reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred by late Shri Mihir Mehta in defending CBI Special Case No. 06/2009;

(ii) Whether the proceedings in CBI Special Case No. 06/2009 arose out of acts done by late Shri Mihir Mehta in the discharge of his official duties, so as to bring the claim within the instructions governing reimbursement of legal expenses. 7.1 It is pleaded that the representation dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure A/2) was submitted by late Shri Mihir Mehta. As respondents have considered and decided the claim, we proceed to examine it on merits. 7.2 Point (i): The claim of the applicant rests essentially on the communication No. 15/1693/95-S.VII/476 dated 15.10.2019. Relief (B) seeks a declaration with reference to that communication, and relief (C) seeks payment “in pursuant to communication dtd. 15/10/2019”. The relevant portion reads as under: - “(i) TA for appearing CBI Cases- In light of S.R. 153-A, it is clarified that TA for attending the CBI cases at Ahmedabad may be granted to Smt. Ashlesha Metha, only if the legal expenses incurred by her in defending the CBI Court proceedings have been reimbursed to her, in full or in part by the Department. Otherwise, TA will not be granted to her.

(ii) Treatment of period spent in attending CBI cases- In light of S.R. 154, it has already been clarified vide this Directorate’s letter dated 05.08.2019 and 09.10.2019 (Copies enclosed) that period spent by Smt. Mehta in attending the CBI cases may not be treated as on duty. As such, Smt Mehta may be requested to apply for earned leave or any other kind of leave due for the periods spent by her in attending the CBI cases else these periods maybe treated as on unauthorized absence.”

P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No 160/2022

The communication was issued by the Directorate General, All India Radio (S-VII Section), to the Head of Office, All India Radio, Bhuj, with a copy to the applicant, in response to the letter of All India Radio, Bhuj, dated 19.08.2019 seeking legal and administrative advice. 7.3 A plain reading of the communication shows that its subject is Travelling Allowance and the treatment of the period spent in attending the CBI cases. It does not deal with any claim for legal expenses. Paragraph 2(i) makes the grant of Travelling Allowance conditional upon reimbursement of legal expenses; it does not provide that legal expenses shall be reimbursed. The words “only if” and “Otherwise, TA will not be granted to him” show that reimbursement of legal expenses was treated as an uncertain event, which may or may not happen. The communication neither sanctions nor approves any claim for legal expenses, nor does it refer to any amount. To read it as an assurance that the legal expenses would be paid would reverse its meaning. Further, by paragraph 2(ii) of the same communication, the Directorate declined to treat the period spent by the applicant in attending the CBI cases as duty. Far from accepting that the proceedings concerned his official duties, the communication treats his attendance in those proceedings as his own affair, to be covered by leave. 7.4 Moreover, the communication was not, and could not be, a decision on reimbursement of legal expenses. It was advice to the Head of Office, All India Radio, Bhuj, on the processing of the applicant’s requests for Travelling Allowance and duty treatment. Under paragraph 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 08.01.1959 (Annexure R-2), the decision on a claim for legal expenses rests with the administrative Ministry, in consultation with the Ministries of Finance and Law where necessary, and, under Article 320(3)(d) of the Constitution, after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission where that provision applies. A communication issued on the subject of Travelling Allowance cannot P ANUKUMA

::10 :: OA No 160/2022

take the place of that decision or bind the Government to make payment. 7.5 Even if the communication were read as an assurance, no right could arise from it contrary to the governing instructions. A communication of an office cannot enlarge the scope of the OM or create an entitlement which the OM does not confer, and there can be no estoppel or legitimate expectation against the terms of the governing instructions. Government servants are prosecuted in a large number of cases. Reimbursement of the cost of their defence out of public funds is an exception, confined by the OM to the cases it covers and to be decided in the manner it prescribes. 7.6 Point (ii): Both parties rely on the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. F-45/5/53-Ests.(A) dated 08.01.1959, placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-2. The relevant portion reads as under: - “(4) Legal and financial assistance to Government servants involved in law suits arising out of their official work and conduct”. Paragraph 2(a), under the heading “Proceedings initiated by Government in respect of matters connected with the official duties or position of the Government servant”.

“Government will not give any assistance to a Government servant for his defence in any proceedings, civil or criminal instituted against him by the State in respect of matters arising out of, or connected with, his official duties or his official position. Should, however, the proceedings conclude in favour of the Government servant, Government will entertain his claim for reimbursement of costs incurred by him for his defence, and if Government are satisfied from the facts and circumstance of the case that the Government servant was subjected to the strain of the proceedings without proper justification, they will consider whether the whole or any reasonable proportion of the expenses incurred by the Government servant for his defence should be reimbursed to him.”

Paragraph 2(b), under the heading “Proceedings in respect of matters not connected with official duties or position of the Government servant”. “Government will not give any assistance to a Government servant or reimburse the expenditure incurred by him in the conduct of proceedings in respect of matters not arising out of or connected with, his official duties or his official position, irrespective of whether the proceedings were instituted by a P ANUKUMA

::11 :: OA No 160/2022

private party against the Government servant or vice versa.”

Paragraph 4 explains that “the act must bear such relation to the official duties that the Government servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or a fanciful claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his duties.” Paragraph 5 provides that “The appropriate authority for taking decision in each case will be the administrative Ministry of the Government of India concerned who will consult the Finance and Law Ministries, where necessary.”

7.7 A bare reading of the OM makes it clear that the act must be connected with official duty. This condition must be satisfied before any question of the outcome of the proceedings, the satisfaction of the Government or the quantum of expenses can arise. If the proceedings did not arise out of acts done in the discharge of official duties, the OM does not apply at all, and no reimbursement can be made under it, whatever the result of the proceedings. 7.8 In the representation dated 21.07.2020, the applicant himself states that, on the complaint of the then Station Director, All India Radio, Ahmedabad, the then Vigilance Officer lodged an FIR against him before the CBI, Gandhinagar, and that after investigation the CBI filed two cases against him, namely, Special Case No. 06/2009 and Special Case No. 31/2009. Both cases thus arose from the same complaint and the same investigation. The judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Special Case No. 31 of 2009 records that the case arose from FIR RC-18(A)/2008-GNR dated 31.10.2008, and that charges were framed under Sections 168, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code deals with a public servant unlawfully engaging in trade. The case of the respondents is that the applicant, along with his wife, carried on a private firm, M/s Maanisha Creatives, in the name of another person, and through it obtained production contracts for programmes meant for Akashvani. Allegations of this nature, namely private trade, cheating and criminal misconduct for pecuniary P ANUKUMA

::12 :: OA No 160/2022

advantage, do not relate to acts done in the discharge of official duty. An act of corruption, that is, the securing of an illegal gain or advantage for oneself or another by abuse of one’s position, is an act done on one’s own personal account. The official position of the Government servant may furnish the occasion or the opportunity for such an act, but that does not make it a matter arising out of, or connected with, his official duties or official position within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the OM. Carrying on a private firm in the name of another person to obtain production contracts, and obtaining pecuniary advantage by abuse of position, can never be claimed to be done in the performance of official duties. No part of the official duties of a Transmission Executive in All India Radio can include the acts alleged against the applicant. The applicant has neither pleaded nor shown that the acts for which he was prosecuted were acts done, or purporting to be done, in the execution of his duty. 7.9 The acquittal of the applicant by judgment dated 04.05.2019 does not alter this position. Under the OM, the question is the nature of the matter in respect of which the proceedings were instituted, not their outcome. An acquittal means that the prosecution failed to prove the charge; it does not convert the acts alleged into acts done in the discharge of official duties. The proceedings in Special CBI Case No. 06/2009 thus fall under paragraph 2(b) of the OM, under which no reimbursement is admissible. In this view of the matter, the questions whether the prosecution was without proper justification, and what part of the expenses, if any, would be reasonable, do not arise. For the same reason, Article 320(3)(d) of the Constitution, on which the applicant relies, does not help him. It applies only to the costs of defending proceedings in respect of acts “done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty”. 7.10 Even if the claim were taken to fall under paragraph 2(a) of the OM, it could be entertained only if the proceedings “conclude in favour of the Government servant”. The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.05.2019 P ANUKUMA

::13 :: OA No 160/2022

before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, and the appeal is pending. The acquittal has, therefore, not attained finality in respect of the accused person; though the proceedings have come to an end on passing away of the applicant on 25.11.2021. It would not be appropriate to hold that he was subjected to the proceedings without proper justification on the basis of the acquittal in one case alone. 7.11 Even otherwise, the claim of Rs. 9,00,000/- is a lump sum, and the invoice gives no item-wise break-up. The applicant’s wife states in her rejoinder in O.A. No. 4/2023 that Shri R. Z. Shaikh, Advocate, defended only her husband; but she has herself claimed the same sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as paid to him for her own defence in the same case. As the claim fails on the grounds stated above, we need not go into these details. 7.12 The pendency of the representation dated 21.07.2020 does not, by itself, create a legal right to the amount claimed. Such a right must be established under the OM. The communication dated 15.10.2019 confers no such right. The proceedings in question did not arise out of acts done in the discharge of official duties, and the claim falls outside the OM. 7.13 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred by her late husband in defending CBI Special Case No. 06/2009. Relief (B) and relief (C) cannot be granted.

8. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA