ASHLESHA 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 action on the part of the respondents regarding Non payment of legal expenses incurred by the applicant in defending CBI Court Proceedings, as mentioned in the communication dtd. 15/10/2019 of the respondents, claim submitted by 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 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 is a permanent employee of the respondents, serving as Transmission Executive (TREX) under All India Radio/Prasar Bharati. 2.2 While the applicant was serving at All India Radio, Ahmedabad, criminal proceedings were initiated against her by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pursuant to a complaint made by the then Station Director, All India Radio, Ahmedabad. The applicant was prosecuted in Special CBI Case No. 06/2009 and she was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment dated 04.05.2019. 2.3 The respondents informed vide communication dated 15.10.2019 that the Travelling Allowance (TA) for attending the CBI proceedings could be granted to the applicant only if the legal expenses incurred in defending the proceedings were reimbursed, either in full or in part, by the Department. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a P ANUKUMA

::3 ::

representation dated 21.07.2020 seeking reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred by her in Special CBI Case No. 06/2009. 2.4 The applicant submits that she has incurred substantial expenditure towards professional fees and other legal charges for defending the criminal proceedings. The applicant contends that despite submission of the requisite claim and supporting documents, the respondents have neither finalised her claim nor reimbursed the legal expenses as per Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 08.01.1959 and the provisions of Article 320(3)(d) of the Constitution of India. 2.5 Hence, applicant is seeking appropriate directions upon the respondents to consider and settle her claim for reimbursement of legal expenses, along with interest and other consequential reliefs.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant: 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent employee of the respondents and her claim for reimbursement of legal expenses arose out of criminal proceedings initiated against her pursuant to a complaint made by the then Station Director, All India Radio, Ahmedabad. 3.2 Learned counsel submits that the applicant was acquitted in Special CBI Case No. 06/2009 by judgment dated 04.05.2019 and the respondents, vide communication dated 15.10.2019, had specifically linked the grant of TA with reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in defending the CBI proceedings. 3.3 It is contended that the applicant submitted her claim dated 21.07.2020 along with the relevant supporting documents. Despite the lapse of considerable time, the respondents have failed to take a final decision on the claim or release any amount towards reimbursement. 3.4 Learned counsel further submits that the omission of the name of the applicant’s advocate in the judgment dated 04.05.2019 was subsequently rectified by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 04.09.2020. Therefore, the said P ANUKUMA

::4 ::

omission cannot be a ground to withhold consideration of the applicant’s claim. 3.5 Learned counsel argues that the claim is required to be examined in accordance with the applicable Government instructions, including the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 08.01.1959, and the relevant constitutional provisions concerning consultation with the UPSC, wherever applicable. The respondents cannot indefinitely keep the claim pending without taking an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 3.6 It is further submitted that the continued inaction of the respondents is arbitrary and has caused financial hardship to the applicant. The respondents ought to have processed and decided the claim within a reasonable period, particularly when the relevant representation and supporting documents had already been submitted. 3.7 In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and settle the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of legal expenses submitted on 21.07.2020, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, together with interest and consequential reliefs as may be deemed just and proper.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents: 4.1 Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant, who retired as a Transmission Executive from All India Radio, Ahmedabad, has claimed reimbursement of legal expenses spent on defending criminal cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He contended that the application is not maintainable because the claim was never submitted through the proper official channels to the Directorate, meaning no valid cause of action has arisen against the respondents. Moreover, he pointed out that the financial claim put forward by the applicant is merely a lump-sum amount without any P ANUKUMA

::5 ::

hearing-wise bifurcation, bills, or receipts of payments made to advocates. 4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the records clearly show that during her service, the applicant, along with her late husband who was a Program Executive, secretly created a private firm in another person’s name called M/s Maanisha Creatives. Through this unauthorized firm, she secured production contracts for programs meant for Akashvani from the Tribal Development Corporation and illegally earned substantial production costs. Consequently, the learned Special Judge for CBI Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad, vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Special Case No. 31 of 2009, convicted the applicant under Section 168 of the IPC, Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing her to imprisonment. Additionally, departmental proceedings against her were concluded, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting imposed a penalty of withholding 10% of her monthly pension for one year. 4.4 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the rules regarding the reimbursement of legal expenses for government servants are governed by the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 08.01.1959. Under these guidelines, the government does not reimburse legal costs for criminal proceedings instituted by the State unless the case concludes completely in favor of the employee and the government is satisfied that the employee faced the proceedings without proper justification. In the present case, the applicant was not acquitted; rather, she was formally convicted of criminal charges after a full trial, and her prosecution arose from her own serious misconduct of engaging in private trade in violation of the Conduct Rules. Furthermore, he submitted that the applicant’s reliance on communication dated 15.10.2019 is entirely misplaced, as that relates to Travelling Allowance for attending court dates and treating P ANUKUMA

::6 ::

those days as on duty and has nothing to do with legal cost reimbursement. 4.5 In conclusion, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of these established facts, the applicant’s criminal conviction, and the clear statutory guidelines, the applicant is not entitled to any reimbursement or financial assistance. Therefore, the OA is completely devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Applicant has filed the rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the OA.

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 upon the applicant a right to reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred in defending Special CBI Case No. 06/2009;

(ii) Whether the proceedings in Special CBI Case No. 06/2009 arose out of acts done by the applicant in the discharge of her official duties, so as to bring her claim within the instructions governing reimbursement of legal expenses; 7.1 The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the claim was never submitted through proper official channels to the Directorate, and so no cause of action has arisen. The communication dated 15.10.2019 was also issued to the applicant. Thereafter, she applied directly to the Director General by her representation dated 21.07.2020. There is no proof on record that it was sent through proper channel, and the respondents have clearly stated that it was not. The applicant, in her rejoinder, has stated that non-receipt of the communication/correspondence in the concerned section is not a valid ground to deny the claim, and that the respondents should have decided it on their own. We cannot presume that the representation was received and that the respondents failed to act on it. However, P ANUKUMA

::7 ::

without going into this controversy, we proceed to decide the case 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.”

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 her” 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 P ANUKUMA

::8 ::

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 her official duties, the communication treats her attendance in those proceedings as her 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-3), 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 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-3. The relevant portion reads as under: - P ANUKUMA

::9 ::

“(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 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. P ANUKUMA

::10 ::

7.8 In her representation dated 21.07.2020, the applicant herself states that, on the complaint of the then Station Director, All India Radio, Ahmedabad, the then Vigilance Officer lodged an FIR against her before the CBI, Gandhinagar, and that after investigation the CBI filed two cases against her, 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 her late husband, 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 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, her 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 she was prosecuted were acts done, or purporting to be done, in the execution of her duty. P ANUKUMA

::11 ::

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 her. 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 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, and the appeal is pending. The acquittal has, therefore, not attained finality. The applicant in her rejoinder has stated that the judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Special Case No. 31 of 2009 has no relevancy so far as the issue/grievance involved in the present petition is concerned. The claim before us relates only to Special CBI Case No. 06/2009, and we have not decided it on the merits of the other case. However, both cases arose from the same complaint, and in the other case the applicant has been convicted by judgment dated 22.08.2023. With the acquittal under appeal and a conviction in the connected case, the criminal proceedings arising from that complaint cannot be said to have concluded in her favour. It would not be appropriate to hold that she was subjected to the proceedings without proper justification on the basis of the acquittal in one case alone. P ANUKUMA

::12 ::

7.11 Even otherwise, the claim of Rs. 14,50,000/- is a consolidated sum, without any hearing-wise or item-wise statement, for two advocates who, by her own statement, defended her in both cases. The choice of counsel and the fee agreed were her own. 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. Even under paragraph 2(a), the proceedings have not concluded in her favour. 7.13 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred in defending Special CBI Case No. 06/2009. Relief (B) and relief (C) cannot be granted.

8. In view of the above discussion and findings, the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA