The principle of 'Nemo judex in causa sua' mandates that complaints against a decision-maker must be investigated independently to uphold natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 54305/2022 (for early hearing) in W.P.(C) 10640/2022

2. The matter has been taken up for hearing. Early hearing is allowed. Application is disposed of.

3. The Petitioner is the husband of Ms. Kajal Goel whose loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). He had filed a complaint before the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter `CVO'), SBI seeking investigation into the wrong classification of his wife's loan account. The said complaint was investigated by Mr. Tarun Kumar Muttreja, DGM (Retired) of SBI who gave a report against the Petitioner.

4. The Petitioner thereafter made allegations against Mr. Muttreja and filed a second complaint dated 16th September 2021 against him before the CVO, SBI. The said complaint was investigated by the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of SBI-Mr. Ajit Kumar Rath.

5. Being dissatisfied with the said second investigation, the Petitioner lodged another complaint dated 19th May, 2022 with the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Delhi (hereinafter `CVC') on 19th May, 2022 against the CVO of SBI i.e., Mr. Ajit Kumar Rath. The allegations in the said complaint were that criminal offences were committed by Mr. Tarun Kumar Mutreja who had investigated the Petitioner's complaint with bias. It is also alleged by the Petitioner that a fair hearing was not given to him even by Mr. Rath, CVO, SBI and that he too was guilty of committing criminal offences.

6. The prayer in the said complaint was for inquiry and investigating the complaint against the CVO and other officials of the Vigilance Department of the SBI. The said prayer reads as under:

"1. To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation into the present complaint against the CVO, SBI and the unknown officials at Vigilance Department of State Bank of India for the Misconduct of Departmental Bias and Negligence and Violation of Vigilance Rule 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.5.3 of the Vigilance Manual 2017."

7. Along with the complaint, the Petitioner submitted various documents to the CVC. The CVC, vide its communication dated 30th May, 2022 gave the details of action taken by it as under:

"COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

8. This communication of the CVC has been challenged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner who appears in person submits that the CVC could not have sent this complaint for necessary action to the same CVO against whom he had made complaint. He submits that this would be completely contrary to the principles of natural justice and would also amount to the CVO, SBI being a judge in his own cause.

9. Hence, the prayer in the writ is as under:

"A. Issue an writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to:

#1 To order investigation into the Vigilance Complaint No.199192/2022/Vigilance3, as the present respondent's Impugned Action as mentioned in Annexure P-2 of this petition i.e. to send Impugned Vigilance Complaint against the CVO, SB