* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th August, 2014.
+ W.P.(C) 1771/2012 & CM No.14784/2013 (for direction)
ASHOK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachit Sahijpal, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Shandilya, Adv. for Mr.
Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate for
R-1/UOI.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra and Mr. P.
Sinha, Advocates for R-2, 3 & 11.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition filed in public interest in or about March, 2012 seeks, (i) a direction to the respondent No.4 Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to proceed/resume investigating the matter under Complaint No.1605/09/6; (ii) a direction to the CVC to investigate "in an effective manner with positive attitude" the misdeeds of the respondent No.2 Sh. S. Roy Choudhury, Chairman & Managing Director (CMD) of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and all other officials of HPCL as detailed in the W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 1 of 6 petition; (iii) a direction to the respondent authorities i.e. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG), Public Enterprises Selection Board and Department of Personnel & Training to cause investigation into the allegations made in the petition against the respondent No.2 and other officials of HPCL; and, (iv) a direction to the respondents to transfer the respondent No.2 pending investigation against him.
2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition,
(a) that on a complaint dated 11th November, 2009 of one Sh. Rana Veer Singh, former Member of Parliament (MP), the respondent CVC had registered Complaint No.1605/09/6 against the then CMD and the Director (Marketing) and other officials of HPCL, of giving illegal credit to M/s. Kingfisher Airlines in gross violation of the rules and conduct of business;
(b) that the respondent No.2 had availed complementary tickets for personal and family use from the said M/s. Kingfisher Airlines, thereby accruing gains to himself and causing loss to the exchequer;
(c) that as per the policy of the respondent CVC, disciplinary action against the respondent No.2 should have been initiated by 28th February, 2010 and the respondent No.2 should have been debarred W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 2 of 6 from being appointed as the CMD of HPCL and vigilance clearance could not have been given to him;
(d) however the enquiry by the respondent CVC and the consequent report was being strategically delayed so that the respondent No.2 could complete his tenure as CMD of HPCL;
(e) that the website of the respondent CVC as on 29 th December, 2010 showed the status of the aforesaid complaint as „being examined‟; strangely, on 26th July, 2011, the website showed the status as "commission advised closure on 23rd July, 2010"; however response dated 21st July, 2011 to a „Right to Information‟ (RTI) query, again showed the complaint as „still under investigation‟.
3. The petition came up first before this Court on 28 th March, 2012, when though notice thereof was not issued but the respondent CVC was asked to inform the fate of the complaint aforesaid.
4. In compliance of the above, an affidavit dated 28th May, 2012 was filed by the respondent CVC informing that allegation relating to availing free travel passes by the then CMD of HPCL was not prima facie substantiated and the CVC had decided to close the matter in respect of the then CMD; however with respect to the remaining allegations, the CVC had W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 3 of 6 asked the MoPNG to furnish their comments on the report submitted by the CVO, HPCL to the effect that the directives of the Govt. had not been violated; though a report was received from the MoPNG but further queries were raised from the MoPNG and the response whereof was awaited and whereafter the matter shall be examined further.
5. Another affidavit dated 8th February, 2013 was filed by the respondent CVC stating that after examining the report received from the MoPNG, the CVC had vide Memorandum dated 19th September, 2012 allowed the matter to rest, making certain observations for future.
6. The respondent CVC had filed yet another affidavit dated 27 th April, 2013 inter alia to the effect that the complaint was investigated in terms of the Complaint Handling Policy and the apprehensions expressed in the petition, of foul play etc. are misconceived.
7. Though notice of the petition was not issued but the Union of India through the MoPNG has also filed a response thereto inter alia pleading, (I) that the petitioner is a disgruntled former employee of HPCL and has filed the present petition, not in public interest but to settle personal scores; (II) that the allegations made in the complaint of Sh. Rana Veer Singh had been thoroughly investigated and no merit was found therein; (III) however steps W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 4 of 6 had been taken in accordance with the observations of the CVC in the Memorandum dated 19th September, 2012; and, (IV) wherever, on investigation, irregularities were found, departmental actions had been initiated and were underway.
8. The petitioner, during the pendency of the petition filed an application claiming a direction for stopping the retiral benefit of the respondent No.2. A reply was filed thereto but need is not felt to discuss the same, as we are disposing the petition itself.
9. The writ petition was filed in or about March, 2012 only for a direction to the respondent CVC to proceed/resume investigating the matter under Complaint No.1605/09/6, which the petitioner then alleged, was stagnating and delayed. The respondent CVC has thereafter reported having completed the investigation and closed the case as aforesaid on 19 th September, 2012. The relief claimed in the petition thus has become infructuous. Even the MoPNG has reported having investigated the matter and taken the requisite action. The petitioner, has neither filed any rejoinder to the affidavits of the respondent CVC and the MoPNG nor raised any objections to the conclusion reached by them and action taken in pursuance thereto. The counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing also, except for W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 5 of 6 generally making allegations against the respondent No.2, could not show as to what survives in the petition.
10. The senior counsel for the respondent HPCL of course contended that the present petition is highly motivated i.e. owing to the petitioner attributing his dismissal from HPCL to the respondent No.2 and is targeted against the respondent No.2 only. However, in view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to return any findings on the said aspect, though it may be observed that the said contention does not appear to be without merit.
11. We accordingly dispose of this petition with no order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 11, 2014.
bs W.P.(C) No.1771/2012 Page 6 of 6