Ashok Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3630 Del

*      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

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

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

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

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

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