The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 provides a mechanism to receive complaints of corruption or misuse of power by public servants and to provide safeguards against victimization of the person making such complaints.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. By way of the instant LPA, the Appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 09.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11274/2022, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein seeking to declare him as a Whistle Blower of a cooperative bank scam, money laundering and diversification of funds by Housing Development Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) through its Director in connivance with the management of Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank.

2. It is stated that one Rakesh Kumar Kuldipsingh Wadhwan, one Gautam Mehra, one Pawan Mehra and one Romy Pawan Mehra had floated several companies only for the purpose of getting funds from the nationalized banks and the amounts received from the nationalized banks had been siphoned off. It is stated that as per the information gathered by the Appellant, the said Rakesh Kumar Kuldipsingh Wadhwan, Gautam Mehra, Pawan Mehra and Romy Pawan Mehra formed various companies between 2004-2014. It is stated that they floated several companies and took bank loans from Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank, Yes Bank Limited and other banks. It is stated by the Appellant that it is only after his complaints that the bank scam was unearthed. It is stated by the Appellant that the Appellant has taken a substantial risk in the process of unearthing the bank scam and instead of giving him protection and declaring him a whistle blower no credit has been given to the Appellant herein. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant herein approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 11274/2022, seeking an order for declaring him as a Whistle Blower.

3. The learned Single Judge by the Judgment impugned herein has dismissed the Writ Petition stating that there is no provision to declare a person as a Whistle Blower and further the question as to whether the Appellant's letters, complaints and efforts did result in unearthing the scam or not would require detailed investigation of facts which cannot be traversed by a Writ Court. The learned Single Judge has further observed that this Court can commend the Appellant if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen and no further reliefs can be granted by this Court. The learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the Appellant herein to avail any remedy which might be available to him under any statute which entitles him to be rewarded.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Learned Counsel of the Appellant places reliance on the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 and states that the Appellant should be declared as a Whistle Blower under the said Act.

6. The said contention of the Appellant is untenable. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was brought in to protect anyone who exposes corruption or misuse of power by any public servant. It was found that persons who were responsible for unearthing corruption and wilful misuse of power by public servants were subjected to threats and harassment, and several whistleblowers had even lost their lives in the process. In order to provide protection to such Whistle Blowers on the recommendations of Law Commission and to eliminate corruption and misuse of power, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was brought in. The purpose of the Act was to set up a mechanism to receive complaints of corruption or wilful misuse of power by any public servant and provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of the person making such complaints.

7. Section 4 of the Whistle Blowers Act lays down the procedure for receiving the complaints made by a person which has to be made before a competent Authority. Section 5 provides for an inquiry in relation of the complaints received by the competent authority which includes initiation of proceedings against the concerned public servant. Steps to redress the loss caused to the Government as a result