Passing the order, Justice M. Ramachandran, heading the tribunal, said: “So long as we are expected to uphold the constitutional rights of an individual, we cannot be a silent witness to at least such unpalatable happenings brought to our notice.”
The tribunal rejected RAW’s contention that the officer’s suicide attempt, which was widely covered by the media, had led to exposure of identity, making her a threat to the nation’s security if she was allowed to continue in service. She was compulsorily retired in December 2009. The tribunal said: “There is no casual connection with the mere exposure of identity of an officer and the security of the state as such.” It added that the agency needed to change its attitude as times had changed.
The CAT further advocated transparency in the agency’s functioning, saying nothing would be gained by asking RAW officers to keep to their shells. It observed that in this information age, detailed information about RAW personnel would already be available with those who sought them. The CAT also said Ms Bhatia, who was a director in the Cabinet Secretariat and is now in her late 40s, had been treated with a “large doze of arbitrariness” and that her statutory and constitutional rights were violated. It also noted that during the hearings the woman officer had conducted herself very well in court.
The CAT also held that the alleged escapades of her senior colleagues should not have bothered her unduly. The officer was capable of looking after herself and ignoring any unwelcome overtures in this regard with disdain, it further noted.
Ms Bhatia had alleged that a senior colleague was harassing her and had also gone on to allege that prostitution rackets were being run from the premises of RAW and that its secret funds were being misused. The agency had rejected such charges outright, and claimed that once any official’s association with RAW became public knowledge, he or she no longer had any place in the organisation.
Age Correspondent