Point of Law: As per Section 8 (1) (h) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Ministries of the Central Government or corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government; Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to authorise the Commission to exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration in a manner not consistent with the directions relating to vigilance matters issued by the Government and to confer power upon the Commission to issue directions relating to any policy matters.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the charge sheet vide Ref.No.D(P)/3, dated 22.01.2021 in contravention of Circular No.16/3/06 dated 28.03.2006 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission as illegal and unauthorised, consequently set aside the said charge sheet.

2. The petitioner worked in the Vigilance Department from 05.11.2007 to 28.07.2018 in the respondents company. After completion of period of deputation, the petitioner was reverted to regular department from vigilance department. After reversion, if any action is proposed to be taken against him, there shall be prior consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission. The charge sheet was served on the petitioner, without consulting with the Central Vigilance Commission, as such the impugned action is in contravention of circular No.16/3/06, dated 28.03.2006 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. It is contended that on such reversion, the vigilance personnel shall not be posted to work under an officer against whom, while working in the vigilance department, he had undertaken verification of complaints or detailed investigation thereafter. The ACR shall not be written by such officer(s). All such Vigilance Personnel will be deemed to be under the Commission's purview for purposes of consultation in disciplinary matters, irrespective of their grade. This protection cover will be extended to a period of not less than five years from the date of reversion from the vigilance department. All Vigilance personnel on reversion shall be entitled to represent through the CVO and Chief Executive of the Organization to the Commission if they perceive any victimization as a consequence of their working in the Vigilance department. This would include transfers, denial of promotion or any administrative action not considered routine or normal. This protection will be extended for a period not less than five years after the reversion of such personnel from the vigilance department. In view of the said protection provided to the petitioner, articles of charge framed against the petitioner are discriminatory as he is one among the persons against whom similar allegations are made, but not action was initiated against other officers.

3. The office memo issued in this regard clearly indicates the works contract department (W.C.D) will scrutinize the commercial aspects as per NIT requirements. The qualified agencies will then be evaluated for PQC that will be done jointly by Works Contracts Department dealing officer along with the concerned department Engineer-in-Charge in case of open Tender for both single and two bid systems for uniform and correct evaluation as per the NIT conditions. In view of such instructions, it cannot be said that the petitioner alone acted prejudicial to the interests of the company or negligent in work or negligence in the performance of duty including maligning or slowing down of work. It is relevant to state one of the allegations made against the petitioner is taking an action against "V & S constructions". The said company approached this Court and the issue is pending for determination before this Court in W.A.No.170 of 2020 filed on behalf of respondent No.1, pending consideration of such writ appeal, Writ Petition No.7023 of 2019 and W.P.No.19436 of 2019, the respondents issued the impugned proceedings.

4. The specific contention of the petitioner is that as he worked in the vigilance department from 05.11.2007 to 28.07.2018, by way of victimization to prevent the petitioner to promote from the present post to the post of director, impugned proceedings were initiated. It is contended that, the petitioner unearthed various irregularities during his tenure in vigilance department as such the impugned action is initiated calling upon him to show cause why no action should not be taken against him in contravention of Circular