The advice of the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on disciplinary authorities, and premature interventions in disciplinary processes without a charge-sheet lack a valid cause of action.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In the premises of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased:-

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the reconsidered advice for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, after the original advice for closing the matter including the File Reference No. SPMCIL/VIZ/72/18 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the reconsidered eve advice dated 17.12.2020 for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner.

(ii) To issue further writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Order No. SPMCIL/VIG/72/18(pt)/10978 dated 16.02.2021 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the SPMCIL to withdraw its vitiated proposal received by eve on 27.02.2020.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to act upon the eve advice dated 11.12.2019.

(iv) To issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the matter' in which the eve had given its advice dated 11.12.2019 advising for closure of the proposal for initiating the proceedings qua the petitioner.

(v) To allow the writ petition with cost.

(vi) To pass such other and further order which their Lordships of this Hon'ble High Court deem fit and proper may please be passed."

2. In substance, the petitioner has challenged the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission (`CVC', for short) on December 17, 2020 recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The challenge is also to the rejection of the representation of the petitioner for reconsidering the advice and for not initiating disciplinary action against him and with a further direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw its proposal to the CVC dated February 27, 2020.

3. Some of the facts highlighted by Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj for deciding the issue, which falls for consideration, are, the petitioner had, on September 14, 2016 joined as General Manager, The Security Printing Press, Hyderabad. The printing section of the press generated an indent dated April 20, 2016 for procurement of Blue Wove Paper in reels for making of Inland Letter Cards in reel width 39 cms. The tender was processed for supply of the paper and after completion of all formalities, the order for supply was placed on M/s Sri Sant Kripa Paper Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, vide purchase order dated November 20, 2017. The firm supplied 90,193 Kg of paper on January 12, 2018. The printing section took the trial of 10,539.448 Kg of the supplied paper. Based on the run-ability trial conducted on the machine, out of 90,193 Kg of supplied quantity, 10,539.448 Kg was accepted and the remaining quantity, 79,653.552 Kg paper was rejected. The firm replaced the rejected quantity and supplied 80.110 Kg of paper as replacement for rejected quantity of 79,653.552 Kg of paper. It is noted that 80.110 Kg paper supplied by the firm as replacement was also rejected.

4. It is contended by Mr. Bhardwaj that the Tender Evaluation Committee (`TEC', for short) made the recommendation dated June 15, 2018 for; (i) Cancellation and Closure of the Purchase Order dated November 20, 2017 issued to the firm; (ii) Cancellation of contract for default and violation of the respondent No.1 Procurement Manual by the firm; (iii) Asking the firm to take back the rejected paper i.e. 72,437.25 Kg within