Gurmail Singh vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—The petitioner who was working as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department was sent on deputation in the Punjab State Tube-wall Corporation on 6.6.1997. Presently he is working as Divisional Engineer (planning) Punjab State Tube-wall Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation''). He has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Bureau)- respondent No. 2 ordering de novo vigilance enquiry against him vide order dated 11.3.1998 Annexure P-3.

The petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned order of the respondent for initiating de novo enquiry against him, avers that his entire record throughout has been very good. He has posted as Sub Divisional Engineer in Junior Sub-Division of Mansa. A viligance enquiry bearing R.E. No. 1/89 was registered against him in order to probe the allegation of disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income. In the said inquiry, a list of all the known sources of income were thoroughly investigated and a list of all the assets of the petitioner and his family members was also drawn up. This inquiry continued for three years. The Chief Director, Vigilance, submitted the enquiry report to the Government wherein it was recommended that the enquiry against him be dropped. Accordingly, the Government took a decision Annexure P-1 dated August 30, 1991.

In April 1996, respondent No. 2 registered another enquiry being enquiry R.E. No. 4/96 Mansa against the petitioner on the same allegations. This enquiry was also dropped on 21.2.1997 Annexure P-2. The petitioner who has met the Chief Director (Vigilance Bureau) and informed him of the mental torture being caused to him by callous attitude of the respondents, was assured by the Chief Director that in future no further harassment would be caused to him on account of enquiry on the same allegations. However, to his utter dismay, he received another letter dated March 11, 1998. Annexure P-3, requiring him to appear in the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Bathinda-re-spondent No. 2 in pursuance of the earlier enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa, which already stood dropped vide letter Annexure P-2. He did not appear in the office of respondent No. 2. Instead, he made a detailed representation dated March 17, 1998 Annexure P-4. So far no action has been taken by the Department upon his representation. Hence, this writ petition against the action of the respondents in arbitrarily and blatantly reopening the enquiry proceedings for the third time on the same allegations, which is wholly illegal and unjust.

The respondents admit the factum of intiation of enquiries against the petitioner as above and that in enquiry No. 1/89, registered against him, the income and expenditure of the petitioner during the period from 1.5.1987 to 31.5.1988 was checked and official report was submitted by the Vigilance Bureau. It is pleaded. inter alia, that he was held responsible for not getting approval of the land before selling it and the Vigilance Department had been asked to take departmental action against him. It is also pleaded that regular enquiry No. 4/96 was registered on 12.4.1996 against the petitioner. But the Vigilance Bureau is still conducting the enquiry. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, has not submitted the enquiry report so far. The Government vide its It tter dated 22.4.1997 closed the enquiry at its own level without waiting for the enquiry report of the Vigilance Bureau. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has requested that some more time may be given to him to complete the enquiry. The letter of the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau was examined and it was felt that the matter was closed at the Government level without waiting for the enquiry report. The Government vide its letter dated 22.4.1997 allowed the extension of time to complete the enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa. The report of the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has not been received. On those averments, it is prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed.

I have heard Shri Rajive Atmaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushant Maini, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State.

When this writ petition came up for hearing on May 19, 1998, it was ordered that final order be not passed. Similarly, even at the time when the writ petition was admitted to hearing, the interim stay was ordered to continue. The respondents filed C.M. No. 6148 of 2000 with a prayer that the Investigating Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted its report to the Government. The petitioner is going to retire in the year 2004 and if no final order is passed in the case the evidence collected to the enquiry will wither away and the matter will be delayed.

The substantive question of law which needs consideration in this writ petition is whether de novo enquiry can be ordered against the petitioner.

Annexure P-1 is a letter issued by the Government conveying to the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab that the matter against Gurmail Singh for possessing disproportionate assets beyond his known source be dropped and after consideration, it has been decided to close the case because the petitioner has not been found guilty. Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the enquiry has been dropped as the petitioner was not found guilty, therefore, no subsequent enquiry could be initiated against him. Similarly, another letter Annexure P-2 issued by the Punjab Government indicates that after taking into consideration the report received from the Chief Director, the Government had arrived at a decision to class the regular enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa. If this is the position that the Government has decided to close the case regarding regular enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa, the fresh letter Annexure P-32 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, asking the peti-tionerto appear before him in connection with enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa, could not be issued.

The aforesaid letters Annexure P-1 and P-2 undoubtedly relate to the dropping of the enquiries and also closing the case in regard to regular enquiry No. 1/89 and regular enquiry No. 4/96 Mansa. But the letter Annexure P-3 does not indicate that de novo enquiry has been ordered against the petitioner. In fact, the respondent in para No. 6 of the written statement, has made the position clear. Para 6 of the written statement is reproduced as under :-

"6. That the contents of this para are specifically wrong, incorrect and therefore denied. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has not submitted any enquiry report so far. The Government vide its letter dated 4.2.1997 closed the case at its own level without waiting for the enquiry report of the Vigilance Bureau. The Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau vide his letter dated 13.2.1997 requested that they require some more time to complete the enquiry, therefore, they be allowed two month''s extension to complete this enquiry. The letter of the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau was examined and it was felt that the matter was closed at the Government level without waiting for the enquiry report of the Vigilance Bureau and since Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau wanted some more time to complete the enquiry, the Govt. vide its letter dated 22.4.1997 allowed the extension to complete the enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa. It may, therefore, be seen that the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau has not received any report in regard to R.E. No. 4/96-Mansa. His report is still awaited."

It is also case of the respondent that the regular enquiry on 4/96-Mansa is still pending and the Vigilance Bureau is still conducting the enquiry, On the day when the case came up for motion hearing, the writ was admitted and the interim order was issued that final order in the enquiry be not passed. Now, the petitioner has completed the enquiry, only the final order is required to be passed. On the face of it, Annexure P-2 simply indicates that the Government at its own arrived at a decision to close the enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa. Whether such an action on the part of the Government was valid, that is whether the Government can close the enquiry without waiting for the report of the Enquiry Officer. Unless the report is submitted and the matter is put up before the competent authority, the matter could not be closed. Rather, the position has been made clear by the respondent in para 6 of the written statement, as reproduced above, that the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau vide his letter dated February 13, 1997 had requested that some more time be given to him to complete the enquiry, but the Government instead of giving him time, closed the enquiry vide letter dated 2.12.1997. No reason has been given as to why the said order was passed closing the enquiry in respect of regular enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa. It is not a case that there was no proper or complete enquiry when the order Annexure P-2 was passed, rather it was going on and pending before the Vigilance Bureau. The petitioner has placed on record letter No. 2993-VB-CC/19.8.1997 which finds mention in Annexure P-2. With reference to this letter, the Government had considered the report. It is not made out as to what was the report received with this letter by this Government. Whether there was any material to disagree with the report submitted by the enquiry officer, which resulted into closing of the case as per Annexure P-2. According to the respondent, the letter vide which the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau is seeking time to complete the enquiry sent on 13.2.1997 was not considered. Instead, a reference to a previous letter dated 19.8.1997 Annexure P-2 was made and the Government decided to close the case.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no ground to quash the letter Annexure P-3 dated 11.3.1988 whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer in respect of regular enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa, as already referred to above and also mentioned in C.M. No. 6148 of 2000. The regular enquiry No. 4/96-Mansa is complete and only the final order is to be passed.

This petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to challenge the order that may be passed in the enquiry report.

Petition dismissed