Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12239
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Manoj K. Badal – Appellant
Versus
Central Vigilance Commission – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 30421 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. C. Rakee Sridharan
For the Respondents: Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee
The scope of Article 226 extends to private entities if they exercise a public function, and public servants are accountable for their conduct and integrity in all spheres, including their involvement in the management of private entities, rendering them subject to vigilance inquiries.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 12 and 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Public duty test - When public duty is involved, even a private body can fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction - Public servants cannot be absolved from scrutiny of their conduct merely by claiming actions occurred within a private company’s affairs.
(B) Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Jurisdiction - Public servants - Officials of a nationalised bank acting in their official or private capacities are subject to scrutiny for allegations involving corruption and misuse of public office - Statutory authorities cannot decline to enquire into such complaints.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Assistant General Manager (HR) at a housing finance company, alleged a widespread recruitment scam involving pressure to select unqualified candidates. Following a whistleblower complaint, he faced punitive actions including transfer, suspension, and disciplinary proceedings. He sought a writ of mandamus to compel an inquiry into his complaints against bank officials who held dual roles in the management of the private finance company.
Findings of Court:
The court found that because the officials involved were public servants (employees of a nationalised bank) even when serving on the board of the private entity, their conduct warranted investigation. The court clarified that the nature of the function, rather than the corporate classification of the entity, determines the maintainability of a writ petition.
Issues: Whether acts of public servants in a private corporate capacity are subject to inquiry by statutory vigilance bodies and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the entity being private.
Ratio Decidendi: A public servant must maintain integrity in all spheres, and when public officials are involved in private ventures, they are not immune to disciplinary scrutiny by statutory vigilance authorities for allegations of corruption or misuse of power.
Result: Writ petition allowed; authorities directed to conduct a fair inquiry allowing petitioner participation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner alleges retaliatory action and corruption as a whistleblower. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondents contest maintainability asserting the private nature of the entity. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner challenges respondents' procedural inconsistencies and evidence integrity. (Para 4) |
| 4. submission of arguments regarding jurisdiction and corporate status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. public duty of servants dictates scrutiny regardless of corporate structure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, that while he was serving as Assistant General Manager (HR) at the Bangalore Head Office of Can Fin Homes Ltd., he was responsible for overseeing pan-India recruitment. During this period, the GM-HR of Respondent No.7 – CanFin Homes Ltd repeatedly pressured him to select preferred candidates, often sharing profiles of unqualified individuals through WhatsApp and threatening dismissal for non-compliance. According to the petitioner, this led to the systematic exclusion of meritorious candidates and manipulation of recruitment processes, including alleged alteration of marksheets.
1.1. Acting in good faith, the petitioner submitted a formal whistleblower complaint on 26.10.2024, at approximately 2:21 p.m. via email addressed to respondents No.7 and 9 (MD of CanFin Homes, and Dy.GM Canara Bank-cum-DMD CanFin Homes Ltd), detailing instances of corruption and malpractice; and within roughly four hours, at around 6:30 p.m. on the same day, he received a transfer order dated 26.10.2024, issued by the same GM-HR, relocating him from Bangalore to the Nampally branch in Hyderabad. It is alleged that this transfer is a retaliatory and punitive transfer. Subsequently, the petitioner sent an email dated 28.10.2024 requesting a review of the transfer, but his request was rejected.
1.2. On 30.10.2024, he sent a detailed email to respondent No.8 – Chairman, Audit Committee, CanFin Homes, elaborating on his whistleblower allegations and enclosing evidence of recruitment irregularities. In response, an Inquiry Officer, (who is an Assistant General Manager, junior in rank to the accused General Manager-HR) was appointed, which the petitioner contends violates principles of natural justice. It is stated that his whistleblower complaint gained national media attention, including coverage by news channels like NDTV Profit, during which his identity was disclosed, in breach of confidentiality protections mandated under the company’s whistleblower policy and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
1.3. The petitioner further states that he pursued external remedies, by submitting a complaint via email dated 26.12.2024 to the respondent No.3 – Reserve Bank of India, at Chennai, followed by multiple reminders. He then filed a formal whistleblower complaint dated 27.12.2024, and sent successive reminders dated 07.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 04.03.2025, and 31.03.2025. He also refers to further communications dated 15.05.2025 and a final letter personally delivered on 01.08.2025 at the Central Vigilance Commission office in New Delhi. Despite these efforts, no substantive action has been taken. In one instance, he received an email dated 13.02.2025 from the Agencies and Co-ordination Group of the Department of Supervision, Reserve Bank of India, informing him that his complaint had been forwarded to the National Housing Bank for necessary action, however, this also yielded no result. Additionally, his complaint registered with the 1st respondent – Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, on 01.08.2025 was reportedly forwarded to the 2nd respondent – Chief Vigilance Officer, Canara Bank, however, there has been no progress on his complaints.
1.4. It is alleged that, meanwhile the retaliatory measures against the petitioner have escalated. He received a Show Cause notice dated 23.05.2025, followed by a suspension order dated 02.06.2025 issued by respondents No.6 and 7, by alleging that the petitioner resorted to actio
