Madan Mohan vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2009 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur passed in O.A. No. 62/2009 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by Superintendent of Police (SPE), CBI, Jodhpur by which the petitioner was repatriated by the CBI to his parent department Western Railway.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the order of learned Tribunal is erroneous because conscious decision was taken by the screening committee of the CBI for absorption of the petitioner but as per directions of the Central Vigilance Committee, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner is very much entitle for absorption in the CBI but on the basis of directions issued by Central Vigilance Committee the order impugned has been passed to sent petitioner back to his parent department, which is not in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and another, in which Hon''ble Apex Court held that the Department competent authority cannot act under the dictation of Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government so also it has been held that no third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officer.

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner so also the impugned judgment.

In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of PWI-III in Bombay Central Division of Western Railways. The petitioner was ordered to be sent on deputation to the CBI on the post of Inspector for a period of three years on 3.1.2002. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner assumed his duty on deputation at CBI, Jodhpur on 10.1.2002. As per pleadings in the petition, the candidature of the petitioner was considered for absorption in the CBI and his case was approved for absorption in CBI subject to issuing the NOC by the competent authority but on 28.1.2009, an order was issued for repatriating the petitioner to his parent department and he was ordered to be relieved on 28.1.2009 but learned Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application has observed that CBI has not committed any error while accepting the advise of Central Vigilance Committee. The department like CBI cannot over-rule the comments/advice of Central Vigilance Committee, therefore, there is no illegality in the order.

After perusing the judgment impugned so also the pleading of the writ petition and the judgment citied by learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that CBI is an independent government agency and it is very important agency in which no person having any clouded record or spot in his career is required to be retained. Therefore, if any decision has been taken by the CBI as per the advise of Central Vigilance Committee for sending back the petitioner to his parent department cannot be termed as dictation, in this view of the matter, there is no illegality in the action of the CBI for repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. The administrative decisions are required to be taken in the interest of public at large and for better administration and if any decision has been taken by the CBI not to retain the petitioner in the CBI, then, it is not required to be interfered.

In this view of the matter, we are in full agreement with the judgment dated 14.12.2009 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order impugned dated 28.01.2009 has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition is also dismissed.