Back
Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal, Allows Inquiry Against CCI Officer Over Witness Tampering
In a significant ruling, the has cleared the way for disciplinary proceedings against a senior officer accused of tampering with witness statements during an investigation into alleged in oil well cement tenders. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal filed by CCI Deputy Director (Law) Vijay Bishnoi, upholding the single judge’s decision and directing the completion of the inquiry within six months.
The Origin of the Case
The controversy stems from a complaint filed by on , alleging anti-competitive practices in tenders for “Oil Well Cement.” The CCI registered Case No. 35/2020 and conducted at premises of various cement companies, including , between December 22 and 24, 2022. During these operations, statements of ICL officials—Mr. Swaminathan and Mr. Parthasarathy—were recorded by CCI officials.
In , senior CCI officials alleged that Bishnoi had tampered with these statements. A followed, leading to Bishnoi’s on . The CCI, acting as the , approved the initiation of on , and a on . The concurred, and on , the CCI Chairperson directed issuance of the memorandum of charge ( ).
The Challenge Before the High Court
Aggrieved, Bishnoi filed a writ petition challenging the , the order, and various procedural orders. A single judge dismissed the petition on , holding that the CCI had validly approved the and that the Chairperson’s direction was merely administrative. Bishnoi then appealed to the Division Bench.
Senior Counsel and argued that the lacked the express approval of the CCI as required under . They pointed out that the approved on , was not the same as the ; that the list of witnesses (Annexure IV) was not forwarded to the CVC; and that a dated , materially altered the . They also contended that the Chairperson could not substitute the ’s power and that the CVC’s advice was never placed before the CCI.
The CCI, represented by Senior Advocate , countered that the and the were substantially the same, that the list of witnesses was part of the approved draft, and that the was merely clerical. They maintained that the Chairperson’s direction was administrative and that the CVC’s concurrence rendered a second approval unnecessary.
Court’s Analysis: Approval and Procedural Safeguards
The Division Bench examined the departmental records, which were produced during the appeal. The court found that the CCI had approved the on , and that the was the same document. The absence of individual signatures of members on the draft did not vitiate the approval, as the minutes of the meeting recorded the decision. The court observed that “a draft placed before a statutory body for approval is not ordinarily signed or dated by that body. Approval is evidenced by the decision of the body as recorded in its minutes.”
On the list of witnesses, the court noted that it formed part of the approved and was not forwarded to the CVC. However, since the list was a procedural annexure that did not alter the substance of the charge, no fresh approval was required. Similarly, the was clerical and did not change the imputation, so it did not need separate approval.
Addressing the Chairperson’s role, the court held that the direction to issue the charge memo was administrative, not disciplinary. “ confers upon the Chairperson general powers of superintendence, direction, and control over administrative matters. It does not confer the disciplinary jurisdiction vested in the CCI under Rule 14,” the bench stated.
Key Observations
The court made several notable observations:
“Where the advice concurs with the proposal and suggests no change, nothing remains for the to reconsider, and a second formal approval of an unaltered document would be an empty formality.”
“The charge concerns the manner in which the statements of Mr. Swaminathan and Mr. Parthasarathy came to be recorded and signed; whether the charge is established is a matter of evidence to be determined by the .”
“Since the disciplinary proceedings have remained stalled since the , and the Appellant has remained under since 19.05.2023, it is expedient and in the interest of both Parties that the inquiry proceeds and be brought to a conclusion without further delay in a timebound manner.”
The Final Decision
The Division Bench affirmed the single judge’s judgment in all respects. It dismissed the appeal and directed that the disciplinary inquiry resume from the stage it had reached. The must conclude the inquiry, and the must pass a final order, within six months from the date of the judgment ( ). All pending applications were disposed of, and no order was made as to costs.
The court returned the original departmental records to the CCI.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities need not formally re-approve a when the CVC suggests no changes. It also clarifies the administrative role of the CCI Chairperson in issuing charge memos. The six-month timeline ensures that the long-pending proceedings against Bishnoi, who has been under for over three years, will be concluded expeditiously. The merits of the tampering allegation remain to be determined by the , and Bishnoi retains the right to challenge any adverse final order.
