Parveen Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1469 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of this writ petition which is filed by the petitioner in the nature of public interest litigation. The following reliefs are sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition:

(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to refer certain incidents, as mentioned above, to the office of the C.B.I. for investigation in relation to the working and functioning of the office of respondent No. 6 as the office of respondent No. 6 has been constituted by an Act of Parliament namely 'The Export (Quality Control & Inspection) Act, 1963' with some object which is sought to be achieved like upliftment of Indian Farmers/Industries;

(ii) to pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of general public.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for respondents 6 & 7, particularly at the admission stage itself, as certain allegations have been made against the said respondents 6 & 7.

3. Respondents 6 & 7 is the present Director of the Export Inspection Council of India. The petitioner herein is an employee of the said Council. It is disclosed from the records of the case that in the year 2001, the petitioner submitted an application in response to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 6 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director. The Respondent No. 6, the Director, is also imp leaded as the Respondent No. 7 in her personal capacity. The candidature of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Director as he was ineligible/over-aged. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 7566/2002 which was dismissed. The said writ petition was directed against an order of transfer of the petitioner to Bombay. The appeal filed as against the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the said writ petition also, the petitioner challenged the order of transfer as mala fide on the part of the respondent No. 6. It was the specific case there that the petitioner is transferred by way of victimisation and harassment to the petitioner due to his request for an inquiry by CVC for irregular appointment. The Division Bench as also the Single Bench dismissed the pleas and held that there is no mala fides.

4. It is the stand of respondents 6 & 7 in the present petition that the present writ petition is the out come of personal grudge and malice and vindictiveness of the petitioner against respondents 6 & 7 and also that this petition has been filed by the petitioner to fulfilll his personal agenda.

5. In view of the nature of allegations made in the petition, it has become more important and relevant for us to consider the allegations very minutely which we have done not only during the course of arguments but also while delivering the final order on the writ petition.

6. The petitioner also filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the selection process/appointment of the Assistant Directors in which he was found ineligible/over-aged. The said writ petition was registered as WP(C) 5374/02 wherein the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the appointment of the successful candidate of the said selection process which is still pending for consideration.

7. In this writ petition the petitioner sought to bring to the notice of the Court several alleged illegalities and irregularities committed by respondents 6 & 7. It was submitted before us by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No. 7 is not eligible to hold the post of Director namely, respondent No. 6 post. The next submission was that respondent No. 7 took no notice of the forgery committed in the relevant certificate, particularly in respect of grading given for exporting Basmati rice by raising it to higher standards. It was submitted that despite being aware of the aforesaid forgery, no criminal case was filed and that the exporter was allowed to go scot free. Similar submission was made in respect of the GSP/COO Certificate in respect of which it was submitted that a parallel office was working which fact was accepted by one of the culprits. It was submitted that so far as CFSL report dated 23rd May, 2003 is concerned, even the rubber stamps and signatures were forged. Despite the said fact, no action was taken by respondent No. 7. It was also submitted that export was made to international markets on the basis of forged certificate, unauthorisedly issued, thereby causing huge loss of revenue to the government, for which also no action was taken by respondent No. 6 There are several other allegations listed in the petition which are not specifically argued by the counsel. It was also submitted by the petitioner that although the petitioner filed several petitions, in none of the petitions filed by him he had raised any personal vendetta against Respondent No. 7. It is admitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that he had filed a Writ Petition No. 102/02 seeking age relaxation in recruitment to the post of Assistant Director, which was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal filed as against the said order was also dismissed. It was submitted that in the said case respondent No. 7 was not imp leaded by name and that respondent No. 6 was only a party.

8. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 6 was party respondent in the said case. The petitioner filed another writ petition which was registered as WP(C) 7566/2002, in which the petitioner challenged his order of transfer on promotion, despite the fact that he accepted the order of promotion to the higher post. The said writ petition was also dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed in the said writ petition was also dismissed. In the said case also respondent No. 6 was a party but respondent No. 7 was not made a party in personal capacity. Writ petition No. 5374/2002 is filed by the petitioner challenging appointment of Assistant Directors, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. In the said case respondent No. 7 is made a party on the allegation that the she had committed misconduct by recruiting unqualified persons and also allowing unauthorised persons to sit as members of the Selection Committee.

9. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is perturbed by the corruption committed in the office of respondent No. 6 and, therefore, this petition is filed seeking the reliefs which are extracted herein-above.

10. We have heard in extenso the counsel appearing for respondents 6 & 7, who categorically denied the allegations made against the said respondents, both in the writ petition and also on the oral submissions made before us. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties we propose to consider and discuss the allegations and proceed to give our decision on the same.

11. The first issue which is urged by the counsel for the petitioner before us is that respondent No. 7 is not eligible to hold the post of Assistant Director as she was declared ineligible. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on an extracted copy of the statement showing particulars of applicants for transfer on deputation. The name of the respondent No. 7 is placed on serial number 110 and our attention is also drawn to the remarks column on the basis of which it was submitted that respondent No. 7 was not eligible to hold the post of Director. In our considered opinion the aforesaid submission is totally baseless as the relevance of the aforesaid extracted copy of the statement to the issue urged could not be explained to us. The aforesaid statement appears to be prepared for considering the cases for transfer on deputation. It is not disclosed from the said statement for what particular post the same was prepared and in which year the same was prepared. The Court cannot give any finding on the basis of some ambiguous and vague statement placed on record without giving proper explanation regarding and for the same. The said submission is, therefore, rejected.

12. The second contention is that respondent No. 7 failed to take any criminal action despite clear forgery committed in giving grading in the relevant certificate for exporting Basmati rice and that the exporter was allowed to go scot free. In support of the the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the letters dated 27th October, 1999, 17th January, 2002 and 7th January, 2002, annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively and on an extracted copy of the noting in the file, annexed as Annexure P-6. The incident in respect of which the allegation is made admittedly pertains to the period prior to the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Director. Therefore, she cannot have any direct knowledge in respect of the aforesaid incident for which the allegation is raised. It is also disclosed from the record that a show cause notice was issued from the office of respondent No. 7 to the said exporter. Respondent No. 7 has also written a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 7th June, 2002 bringing to their notice the summary of the entire case and also action taken against the concerned exporter. In the said letter it was explained that while restoring IPQC facility to the exporter, the previous track record of the exporter as well as the fact that he is one of the largest exporters to the European Union were also kept in view. It also explained that any action of black listing or cancelling the approval may affect India's exports. The Ministry was also informed through the said letter the opinion of the Director that no further action by EIC might be necessary at that stage particularly in view of the fact that EP Agricultural Division has already requested the DGFT to take action against the exporter, which is pending for consideration. In our considered opinion the said letter is self-explanatory and a clear case was made out justifying the action taken and the circumstances under which the said action was called for. Commerce Ministry also appears to be satisfied with the said explanations given and the matter was closed with the action taken on the exporter by respondent No. 7. We also find that there was no justification for proceeding in the matter any further in view of the reasons given. Some may agree with the aforesaid reasons given some may not, but the fact that action was taken in good faith and on reasons found to be cogent, is apparent from the face of the record. The aforesaid allegation brought in by the petitioner is also without any merit and totally baseless. The issue, which is of the year 2002 and was closed upon issuance of the letter dated 7th June, 2002, is being raked up by the petitioner after four years. The purpose and the intent for the same is obvious.

13. The next contention is regarding the alleged illegality in issuing the GSP/COO certificate. So far as those allegations are concerned it is established that the rubber stamps and signatures appearing on those certificates were forged. it was submitted that despite the said fact no action was taken by respondent No. 7. The fact as disclosed from the records are however otherwise. it is disclosed from the record that respondents 6 & 7 referred the matter to the CFSL for examination of the signatures and the stamps/seals. A report was received from the CFSL stating inter alia that the signatures of none of the authorised officers tallied with those on the GSP certificate but the Stamp impressions on the certificates were tallied. Respondent No. 7 ordered for initiation of the departmental proceedings against the officials who were in charge of the stamp/seal affixing. It is also disclosed from the records that though the signatures of the authorised officers were not found tallying with those on the GSP Certificates but still respondent No. 7 passed orders for transfer of the said officers as a measure of abundant caution to keep public faith in the probity and transparency of the system. The employee of the export firm accepted his guilt before the committee of officers appointed by respondents No. 6 & 7 to inquire into the matter. During the course of the inquiry it was found that none of the certifying officers was involved in it. It also transpires from the record that the respondent No. 6 was conscious of the sensitiveness and gravity of the nature of the matter and, consequently, referred the same to the CBI for further investigation. Copies of the letter dated 24th May, 2005 and 25th April, 2006 written from the office of the respondents N6.6 & 7 to the Director,CBI and Additional S.P., CBI EOW-1 have been shown to us. Presently CBI has seized of the matter and, therefore, the allegations made in that regard also are found to be baseless.

14. Allegation is also made by the petitioner regarding purchase of staff car with air conditioning facility by respondent No. 7. This allegation finds place in the writ petition and, therefore, we are referring to it although the same was not specifically urged before us. Counsel for the respondent submitted before us that the Export Inspection Council of India did not have any staff car and in that view of the matter the apex decision making body of the Council decided to purchase a better car than one Ambassador car, as the same could be used as and when necessary by the Director of the Council as also by the foreign delegates and European Union team officials and the FAO officials as and when required. The Council purchased a Maruti Esteem car and funds for the same was provided for by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. Since the said car was purchased on the basis of a resolution of the apex body and also with the consent and approval of the Commerce Ministry, there is neither any irregularity nor illegality in the purchase of the aforesaid Esteem car. The said allegation is also found to be baseless and without any merit.

15. There are a large number of other allegations made in the petition. But during the course of arguments they were not argued and therefore could be treated to be not pressed before us. The said allegations pertain to roaming facility being made available on the mobile phone of the Director, availing a corporate credit card and complimentary air ticket. Counsel for the respondent, however, during the course of arguments referred to the said allegations and submitted before us that the manner in which they are being projected is uncalled for. It was submitted before us that roaming facility on the mobile phone and the credit card facility are need based in view of the extensive mobility and traveling of the Director of the Council. It was also pointed out that the Chief Executive Officers of the other sister organisations also have the same facility. It was submitted that the Director in the course of her duty is required to be accessible all the time while in India or abroad not only to the Ministry of Commerce and other Ministries/Departments of the Government but also to the export industry and other corporate bodies and that the said facilities are purely need based. So far complimentary air tickets are concerned it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the answering respondent in her life time has not availed any such facility. We find the aforesaid explanation given by the respondent through her counsel satisfactory and well reasoned. The aforesaid allegations have no basis at all.

16. Having come to the aforesaid conclusions on all the issues raised before us, we find no merit in the writ petition. However, before dismissing the petition, we are required to call upon to say a few words with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of the Council and respondent No. 7 is its Director and Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner filed several writ petitions in this Court but almost all the said writ petitions have been dismissed and the Letters Patent Appeals filed there from have also been dismissed. He has grievance against respondent No. 7 which is apparent from the face of the record. In the order passed in WP(C) 7566/2002 which is dated 3rd February, 2004 the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that no mala fide is found in the action of respondent No. 7 for if there was any mala fide the petitioner would not have been promoted. The petitioner has also placed on record certain noting of the file of the respondent's office which he could not have otherwise obtained in the course of his official duties.

17. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Director and he was held to be ineligible and over-aged. Since he was not allowed to take part in the selection process he appears to be offended for which he is raking up issues which were also finally settled in the year 2001-2002. This writ petition is filed in this Court only in the year 2006. If there were any grievance in respect of the incidents referred to, the petitioner could have come to the court immediately thereafter. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the present petition is not a public interest litigation but is a personal, private interest litigation of the petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the documents pertaining to one Shri B.C. Saxena. Said Mr.Saxena was dismissed by respondents 6 & 7 as a measure of disciplinary proceedings in a sexual harassment case involving a fellow employee. We have been shown the vigilance audit report of the Central Vigilance Commission which has adversely commented upon on the employees including Mr.Saxena. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner with an ulterior motive of personal vendetta. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision the Supreme Court has held that a writ petitioner must come to the Court for relief in public interest not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also must come with clean heart and clean mind and clean objective. It was further held that the Court must not allow its process to be abused for an oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at time from behind and that the petitions which are filed with improper motives or for vested interests trying to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves must be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

18. We accordingly proceed to dismiss this petition with costs of Rs.20,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner within a month from today to the National Legal Services Authority, Jamnagar House Hutments, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, which will be utilised for providing legal aid to the weaker sections of the society.