1999 Supreme(Del) 531

High Court Of Delhi
ANAND DARBARI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 3376 of 1998
Decided On : 07/28/1999

Disciplinary proceedings - Initiation - Charge sheet - Issuance - Legality.

Headnote:

VIGILANCE - Disciplinary proceedings - Initiation - Charge sheet - Issuance - Legality - Petitioner, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Cement Corporation of India (CCI), was issued charge sheet on the basis of report of Committee constituted by Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry - Petitioner challenged charge sheet contending that once the matter was referred to CBI and CBI had expressed view that no case had been made out against him, charge cannot be sustained and first respondent should have applied its mind to find out whether prima facie case was there, for issuing charge sheet - HELD, charge sheet is liable to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to writ of mandamus for bearing the first respondent from proceeding further with any other inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet dated 24.11.1997.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner was appointed as Chairman-cum- Managing Director of CCI on 2nd January, 1989. In September, 1995, Vigilance clearance was given by CVC for the proposed appointment of the petitioner as the Chairman of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. The petitioner did not join the post. In December, 1995, there were some complaints received by the first respondent, the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry. The first respondent did not find any substance in the complaint. The petitioner was granted extension for three years from February, 1996 upto the 31st of December, 1998. The petitioner was functioning as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCI on the date of filing of the writ petition. In or about September 1996 the petitioner was considered for the post of Chairman, Airport Authority of india and was placed at No. 1 in the panel drawn by the PESB (Public Enterprises Selection Board ). The Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry examined the same complaint again and could not find anything against the petitioner. The first respondent sought for vigilance clearance for the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman, Airport Authority of India. In March, 1997, at the instance of the CVC the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry appointed a Two-Member Committee of two senior officers to examine the case and that Committee came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the complaint against the petitioner. On the 13th of May, 1997, the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry wrote to the CVC on the point as according to the Ministry, the case against the petitioner had to be closed. On the 23rd of May, 1997, the CVC wrote to the Union ot India, Department of Heavy Industry, in the following terms ; "the Department of Heavy Industry may please refer to their Office Memorandum No. C-13011/11/96-VIG, Vol.-lll dated 13. 5. 1997 on the aforementioned subject. 2. The Commission observes that the report of the Committee constituted by the Department of Heavy Industry can only betermed as a preliminary fact findmg exercise based on some documents and some other inputs. The Committee, does not appear to have recorded the oral evidence of all the witnesses/persons who were connected with these matters. In particularly it is felt that the affairs relating to Coal Linkage through private parties and emergency import of spares which are still lying at the port need further probe. 3. Although the investigation conducted so far is not adequate to initiate formal disciplinary action against Shri Darbari, the instances brought out are a case for real concern as there are clear pointers to the lack of transparency and commercial prudence in the transactions and a certain rashness in financial management. 4. Keeping these in view, it is not possible to accord Shri Darbari a cleanchit for his proposed appointment as Chairman, Airport Authority of India. The Commission also observes that the Airport Authority of India is a complex technical organisation with a lot of administrative and financial responsibilities. Its vigilance health is also not too commendable. Viewed together, the Commission expresses its reservations against Shri Anand Darbari, being considered for appointment to the post of Chairman, Airport Authority of India. 5. Receipt of Commission s Office Memorandum may be acknowledged. "

Finding of the Court:

The charge sheet was issued long before the CBI sent its report. It is in this connection the provisions of the Vigilance Manual would assume importance. In Clause 1. 2 in Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual, the work to be entrusted to the CBI is adumbrated. That clause as follows: "as a general rule investigations of the types given below should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or the anti-corruption branch in the Union Territories. (i) allegations involving offences punishable under law which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are authorised to investigate, such as offences involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, etc. ; (ii) possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income; (iii) cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making inquiries from non-official persons or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts etc. ; and (iv) other cases of a complicated nature requiring expert police investigation. All Chief Vigilance Officers including those of public undertakings and Nationalised Banks, subject to the administrative instructions issued by the Chief Executive have complete discretion to refer the above types of cases to the CBI and it is not necessary to seek the Commission s prior permission. "

Issues: Whether the charge sheet was issued on the basis of objective considerations on the materials on record and whether it was an exercise just to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right to be considered for appointment in any of the public sector undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi: On the facts and circumstances of this case, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for bearing the firs respondent from proceeding further with any other inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet dated 24. 11. 1997.

Final Decision: The charge sheet is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for bearing the firs respondent from proceeding further with any other inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet dated 24. 11. 1997.