R.Manoharan vs HLL Life Care Limited

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Through this writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and conduct an enquiry on the harassment happened to the Petitioner and their family.

(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and direct the 7th respondent to conduct an investigation for the corruption and criminal conspiracy on the part of the Respondent No.1 Company.

(iii) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and direct the 7th respondent to conduct an investigation against Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 for their corruption and maladministration in the discharge of their official functions.”

Initially petitioner had sought as relief No.1 apart from the above-mentioned reliefs, a direction to appoint the petitioner's daughter, who was arrayed as second petitioner, as the legal heir of petitioner's wife who had died in harness. However, by an order dated 14.01.2019, the said prayer was deleted along with the second petitioner from the party array.

Petitioner alleges that he and his wife were workers under the first respondent and due to various sufferings that his wife had to undergo in the company, she died in 2007. Despite seeking the benefit of the dying-in-harness scheme for the petitioner's daughter, her application was rejected, initially, stating that she is a minor. Petitioner further alleges that, subsequently, in 2013, when his daughter attained majority, her application was again rejected. After the petitioner retired in 2015, again when his daughter applied for an appointment under the scheme for dying-in-harness, it was rejected by the first respondent. Petitioner further alleges that in 1986 his wife had to undergo a major surgery and despite her being unable to work properly, she was transferred to another section, though on her request but was asked to work with lower grade workers and compelled to do hectic work. In the meantime, in 2007, petitioner was suspended from service as a result of which his wife suffered immensely leading to aggravation of her illness. Petitioner alleges that even after retirement, respondents continued to harass him and even denied the eligible emoluments due to him. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking directions for a CBI enquiry.

Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3, denying the allegations and stating that the writ petition is highly belated and that as per the records available, petitioner had joined the company on 01.01.1983 and that there was no harassment meted out to the petitioner during his employment. It is further stated that, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated, petitioner had admitted to the charges levelled against him and regretted the misconduct and based on the said statement, the management revoked his suspension after taking a lenient view and released his entire wages for the period of suspension as well, as is evident from Ext.P7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also the allegations in the writ petition have been totally denied. Petitioner has filed separate replies to the counter affidavits filed by each of the respondents.

I have heard Sri. R. Manoharan, the party in person. I have also heard Sri. V.Krishna Menon, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.Sreelal Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for CBI and Smt.V. Sreeja, learned Government Pleader.

Petitioner has made various allegations against respondents 1 to 3. All those allegations relate to the period while he was in employment under the first respondent. The allegations raised by the petitioner are totally vague and are bereft of any materials for placing reliance on them. The attempt of the petitioner to obtain dying-in-harness employment for his daughter was declined by the first respondent. It was submitted across the Bar that though his daughter had made a claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal subsequently, the Tribunal had dismissed the said application.

The allegations raised by the petitioner erupted after the claim for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme for his daughter was rejected. Notwithstanding the above, this Court is of the view that considering the obscurity in the nature of allegations and the lack of necessary materials furnished by the petitioner, apart from the belated claim projected in the writ petition, the circumstances do not warrant the conduct of any enquiry or investigation much less an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

In the decision in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 4 SCC 115] the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines when an investigation by the CBI could be ordered. It has been specifically delineated that only in exceptional circumstances should the court exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct an investigation by a specialised agency like the CBI. Even otherwise vague allegations cannot be the basis of a direction for a CBI investigation. Reference to the decisions in K.V.Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, South Zone Chennai and Others (2013) 12 SCC 480 and Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 884) are relevant.

The pleadings and the materials produced by the petitioner do not indicate any prima facie case warranting an investigation either by the CBI or any other agency. An investigation or an enquiry by the CBI cannot be issued as a matter of routine or merely because some allegations have been levelled against a person. The extraordinary power to direct an investigation by the CBI must be exercised only sparingly and that too in exceptional circumstances for the purpose of instilling credibility and confidence in the investigation and when the allegations raised have national or international ramifications or to do complete justice. In this context, it is appropriate to mention that there is no investigation or a crime registered which requires to be investigated by any agency.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the reliefs claimed in this writ petition and it is dismissed.