For Aruna Basu Sarcar, a Ph.D. in Botany and who won the Chief Minister's award for Talent in Tamil given to non-Tamil IAS, IFS and IPS officers, trouble began when she refused to attend `special meetings' called by the Conservator of Forests in 1993. It was as Divisional Manager of the Devala Tea Division of the Tamil Nadu Tea Corporation that the ``tormenting experience'' started.

Taking umbrage, a senior official kicked off a row by uttering ``comments about my personal intellect and moral status'', in the presence of her husband, another IFS officer. This was followed by circulating pamphlets castigating her in ``filthy language''. Thanks to the collusion of several senior officials, she said a bunch of hooligans gathered outside her residence and shouted extremelyobscene and personal remarks against her.

Now Sarcar is on eight months leave. With her appeals of harassment to higher-ups in the State Departments coming to naught, she approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and her latest appeal was to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgement delivered on March 17 this year has directed the Department concerned to consider her name for promotion in eight weeks. She also filed a case in CAT for being denied a promotion based on ``adverse remarks'', which according to her was a story concocted to belittle her performance.

Even as complaints to officers above fell on deaf years, she was charged with inciting unrest in her tea division. She was asked to submit a strike report on January 12, 1995, when workers themselves said there would be no strike or reason to strike.

Consequent to these issues, Aruna Basu was posted as Marketing Manager at Pandiar division on January 19, 1995. Surprisingly, the post itself was abolished vide a G.O. theprevious year. To top it all, the post was meant for a corporation employee and not an IFS officer. She was ordered to vacate her quarters at Devala Tea Division and occupy a non-existent Marketing Manager's bungalow.

After the NHRC directed the State Chief Secretary in September 1995 to probe the issue and submit a report in six months' time, an enquiry officer was appointed in February 1996 and it took over two years to complete the enquiry. The then Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms G Ranga Rao who conducted a enquiry has acknowledged that the respondent's behaviour was ``over-assertive, arbitrary and is not in keeping with official propriety'', and that ``abusive slogans were shouted against the complainant'', he has finally concluded the subject is ``too trivial a matter''.

The enquiry report also acknowledges that higher authorities should have intervened and transferred them at the earliest in Nov. 1994, and concluded saying, ``the allegations of the complainant are more inthe nature of office politics and office tensions. They do not certainly constitute violation of human rights''.