2021 Supreme(SC) 485

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1374 OF 2020
DECIDED ON : 08-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Director of Enforcement can be appointed for a period of more than two years by following procedure prescribed under Section 25 of CVC Act, 2003.
(2) Extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.
(3) General Clauses Act is a part of every Central Act and has to be read in such Act unless specifically excluded.
(4) Any extension of tenure granted to persons holding post of Director of Enforcement after attaining age of superannuation should be for a short period.

Headnote:

(A) Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25 – Fundamental Rule 56 – Director of Enforcement – Extension of tenure – Appointment as Director of Enforcement is on recommendation of Committee constituted by Central Government – Eligibility for appointment of Director of Enforcement is that a person shall be holding at least rank of Additional Secretary to Government of India – Every Government servant shall retire on attaining age of 60 years – Posts for which there can be extension beyond 60 years have been specifically mentioned in the Rule – Post of Director of Enforcement is not mentioned in the Rule for which extension of service can be given – Minimum period of two years which is provided in Section 25 would operate notwithstanding provisions contained in Fundamental Rule 56(a) – A statutory rule i.e. Fundamental Rule 56(a) cannot override a legislative enactment – Initial appointment of second Respondent for a period of two years from 19.11.2018 which extends beyond date of his superannuation in May, 2020 is in accordance with Section 25 of CVC Act and cannot be said to be illegal – For all practical purposes, he should be treated as Director of Enforcement till that particular date he was holding an office which is not below rank of an Additional Secretary to Government of India – Therefore, he was eligible for extension of tenure. (Paras 9, 11, 12 and 15)

(B) Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25 – Fundamental Rule 56 – Director of Enforcement – Extension of tenure – Director of Enforcement can be appointed for a period of more than two years by following procedure prescribed under Section 25 of CVC Act – Words ‘not less than two years’ cannot be read to mean ‘not more than two years’ and there is no fetter on power of Central Government in appointing Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years – Minimum period of two years provided in Section 25 (d) is to prevent extraneous pressure – Prescription of a minimum period of two years is to ensure that Director of Enforcement is not transferred or shifted from said post during course of investigation of serious offences – There is no ambiguity in Section 25 (d) of CVC Act and words ‘not less than two years’ simply mean a minimum of two years – There is no scope for reading the words to mean not more than two years – Reading such a restriction would be contrary to recommendations of Independent Review Committee and judgment of Apex Court in Vineet Narain{(1998) 1 SCC 226} – Curtailment of tenure of a Director Enforcement would be detrimental to interests of officers who are appointed to the post and have service of more than two years before they attain age of superannuation. (Para 14)

(C) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25 – Director of Enforcement – Extension of tenure – General Clauses Act is a part of every Central Act and has to be read in such Act unless specifically excluded – As tenure of appointment of Director of Enforcement is not a maximum period of two years, a person can be appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of more than two years – If Government has power to appoint a person as Director of Enforcement for a period of more than two years, Section 25 of CVC Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 21 of General Clauses Act – There is no allegation that power of extension of tenure was exercised for any unauthorised purpose – However, extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases – Reasonable period of extension can be granted to facilitate completion of ongoing investigations only after reasons are recorded by Committee constituted under Section 25 (a) of CVC Act – Any extension of tenure granted to persons holding post of Director of Enforcement after attaining age of superannuation should be for a short period – No further extension shall be granted to second Respondent. (Paras 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

Present Writ Petition has been filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.11.2020 issued by Respondent No.1, which extended the tenure of the Respondent No.2 as Director of Enforcement in the Directorate of Enforcement and for consequential direction to Respondent No.1 to appoint Director of Enforcement in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Findings of Court:

The justification given by the Union of India for extension of the tenure of second Respondent is that important investigations are at a crucial stage in trans-border crimes. The decision to extend tenure of the second Respondent is pursuant to the recommendation made by high-powered committee.

Result : Writ Petition dismissed.