Senior IPS officer Ravindranath resigns alleging harassment
Bengaluru: A senior Indian Police Service officer has resigned from service accusing 'a few individuals' of harassing him indirectly.
Dr. P Ravindranath, who is serving as Additional Director General of Police in the Forest Cell, tendered his resignation to the Chief Secretary T M Vijay Bhaskar through the Director-General of Police Praveen Sood on October 28.
The officer was booked on charges of molestation six years ago, which he said was quashed by the High Court.
Confirming that he had resigned, Ravindranath said: "Yesterday some promotions happened. I should have been promoted as a number-two. Number-one is Amar Kumar Pandey.
I must have been promoted. Instead of me, Suneel Kumar has been promoted," Ravindranath told PTI.
In his resignation letter, Ravindranath stated that he had served the people of Karnataka with utmost devotion but in the last four years he faced "problems created by a few individuals."
"But a few individuals prevented justice for me. Therefore, having undergone the agony of the indirect harassment, I submit my resignation herewith to lead a peaceful life," Ravindranath said.
He asked the Chief Secretary to accept his resignation.
The 1989 batch IPS officer from Andhra Pradesh had landed in a controversy six years ago when he was accused of allegedly clicking pictures of a woman at a cafe in Bengaluru.
The woman in her complaint to the police had stated that when she and her cousin were at the cafe they saw a man staring at them and clicking pictures.
The next day after the incident, a case of molestation was registered against him under section 354 of the IPC, according to Ravindranath.
He added that a charge sheet in that connection was filed in the court, which was quashed by the High Court.
Further, the CAT not only quashed the Departmental Inquiry initiated against him but also recommended that the matter should be probed by the National Commission for Scheduled Caste four years ago.
However, the government obtained a stay against the order, Ravindranath said.
According to him, the Supreme Court in its order on October 15 stated that any stay granted by any court lapses automatically after six months.
"The stay on the CAT order against which the government had gone to high court automatically lapsed," he said.
Attempts to reach the DGP proved futile.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Legal heirs can claim reimbursement if govt employee dies during treatment: Allahabad HC
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Saturday said that if a government employee or pensioner dies during treatment or becomes incapable of making a claim, his legal heirs can also claim reimbursement of medical expenses.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the verdict on the petition of Chandra Choor Singh.
The petitioner's father was a retired deputy registrar. He was treated at private hospitals in Lucknow, where he passed away during treatment. The petitioner applied for reimbursement of medical expenses, but the department rejected the claim, stating that only the "beneficiary" can make a claim under the rules.
ALSO READ: KSRTC MD Akram Pasha receives SKOCH National Award for transparent recruitment initiative
The state government argued that under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2011, a claim can only be made by a beneficiary, and the petitioner did not fall within this category. It also cited the limit of Rs 5,000 set out in the succession certificate submitted by the petitioner.
The court rejected this argument of the state government, stating that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2011, were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that if a beneficiary dies or becomes incapable of making a claim, his or her legal heirs cannot be deprived of this right.
Applying the principle of "reading down", the Court directed that Rule 16 be interpreted to include legal heirs, especially when there is no other eligible beneficiary.
The court also clarified that if there is no dispute about being an heir, it is not appropriate to reject the claim merely on technical grounds.
Ultimately, the court directed the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim and take a decision within two months, and if the claim is found to be correct, payment should be ensured within one month.
