Gurnam Singh vs The Haryana State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—Gurnam Singh, Director, Sugar Mills, Shahabad, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent 1, 2 and 5 to 7 for initiating legal proceedings against the respondents 3 and 4 for having caused loss to the Sugar mills at Shahabad on account of misdeeds and material irregularities of respondents 3 to 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that investigation of the case be ordered to be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation and to launch criminal proceedings against respondents 3 and 4.

The petitioner in his petition has detailed the irregularities committed by respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of which the directions, as referred to above, are being asked for.

There is no need to go into the details of the case as pursuance to notice issued by this Court, respondents have appeared and learned counsel representing them state that all those who were involved in the irregularities are being departmentally proceeded against. It has further been stated by the learned counsel representing the State that even a vigilance enquiry was ordered against the Managing Director and others by the Chief Minister himself.

On the statement made by none other than Additional Advocate General, Haryana we are convinced that all involved in this matter are being appropriately proceeded with. The Government has not spared even the Managing Director and as mentioned above, a vigilance enquiry is pending against him and others.

Mr. Kapoor, despite the statement made by Mr. Manchanda states that inasmuch as the said information has not been disclosed in the written statement it cannot be believed as such. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel. It is not necessary that the respondents would have given this information to Court only by way of written statement. It is always open to respondents to disclose material facts to the Court at any stage of the proceedings. This Court has absolutely no reasons to doubt the statement made by Mr. Manchanda.

Mr. Kapoor then contends that it is one of those cases where fault of everyone stands admitted and that too by none other than those who have been proceeded with and, therefore, it is a case where they should be adequately punished. We do not find any merit in this contention of the learned counsel as well. True, some of those who are being proceeded with have- in various documents mentioned shortages of material, but it is equally true that they have not admitted that they were at fault for the alleged shortages. On the material that is available on record no conviction at all can be recorded. Otherwise, too it is right of every individual to be tried in appropriate proceedings. This Court, cannot arrogate to itself the role of Criminal Court or of the punishing authority in dealing with the respondents of the case. Law will take its own course and in case findings in enquiry are returned against the respondents who are being departmentally tried or against whom vigilance enquiry is going on, they will be proceeded accordingly and punished if some offences are found against them. In view of the statement made by Mr. Manchanda, in our considered view, this writ petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. In the circumstances of this case, we direct respondent to complete the vigilance enquiry as early as possible and preferably within six months from today.