Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

In the present writ petition, following are the prayers:

(a) Kindly be writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the registration of Preliminary Enquiry bearing No. PE 028 2014 A 0001, dated 21-3-2014 registered by Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Nagpur (Respondent no.3) at Annexure-P-15.

(b) Kindly by issuing writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restrain respondents from carrying out any further enquiry against the petitioner in PE 028 2014 A 0001, dated 21-3-2014.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Chief Vigilance Officer with Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur. His case is further that he was on inimical terms with Chairman and Managing Director of the WCL, late Mr. D.C. Garg and had brought to the fore some of his activities. According to him, Mr. Garg was very influential bureaucrat and, therefore, maneuvered lodgement of the complaint against the petitioner. That in the present case, the preliminary enquiry was registered on 21.03.2014 and though the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, , has clearly laid down the dead line of seven days for conduct of preliminary enquiry, the petitioner did not either know or receive the result of the preliminary enquiry in the last about one year. Mr. Palshikar, therefore, submitted that it is in violation of the directions issued by the apex Court.

Per contra, Mr. Ahirkar, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI, on the last date, by order dated 22.01.2015, was asked to furnish the preliminary enquiry report in view of the grievance that was made by the petitioner. Today, Mr. Ahirkar the Standing Counsel for CBI, has tendered a status report in a sealed cover. We have opened the sealed cover. We have read the status report prepared on 28.01.2015 by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Nagpur. Copy of the report is kept on record and original is returned back to Mr. Ahirkar. We find that the preliminary enquiry was registered by the CBI on the basis of the complaint dated 30.12.2013 made by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, WCL, Nagpur as complainant but in that complaint, it was stated that he received a complaint against the petitioner from Captain Jaynarayan Prasad Nishad, Member of Parliament and that, therefore, the same was being forwarded to the CBI. That apart, the gist of the complaint was that there was corruption, fraud and cheating committed by the present petitioner in respect of TA, DA, LTC and Telephone Bills.

We, really wonder as to how only on the allegations of false claim for TA, DA, LTC and Telephone Bills, the CBI should have entertained such a complaint at the first blush; when the CBI claims that it does not have time to investigate several complaint cases or is overburdened with many important cases arising in the country. However, for whatsoever reason, fact remains that preliminary enquiry (PE) was registered on such type of flimsy allegations about irregularities in claims for TA, DA, LTC and Telephone Bills. We have absolutely no hesitation in holding that services of the premier investigation agency namely; CBI could not have at all been sought for making criminal investigation into TA, DA, LTC and Telephone Bills. But then merely because a Member of Parliament and CMD, WCL made complaint, CBI registered the PE. CBI is not meant for investigating such types of complaints. This shows that the respondent acted at the behest of a powerful bureaucrat. Be that as it may. Having registered preliminary enquiry on 21.03.2014, the CBI continued its investigation and finally has come to a conclusion that there is a dispute about entitlement of the petitioner for the claims made by him and that the enquiry also reveals excess claim made for hotel bills, food bills submitted by the petitioner and the officials of the Finance Department and WCL processed those claims and also made payments. The report is that the action for initiating regular departmental action for major penalty against the petitioner was made since the petitioner stood repatriated to the Telangana Cadre. Thus, after such a long period, the net result is initiation of regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is also seen that Chief Vigilance Officer also was looking into the allegations.

In view of above, we are of the clear opinion that the WCL represented by the CMD clearly misused and abused the prime investigating agency by maneuvering a complaint through Member of Parliament of a nature of financial irregularities in TA, DA, LTC and telephone bills. We also find merit in the submissions made by Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is violation of the directions made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari (supra).

We think, this should be brought to the notice of the Director, CBI who should take notice of such actions of the CBI elsewhere and to make it act responsibly.

Having seen the report, we find that there is absolutely no case made out against the petitioner. The petitioner was clearly harassed by the person making complaint. That being so, we make the following order.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 461/2014 is allowed.

(ii) Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

Copy of this order be sent to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.