Uttarakhand High Court
Bhajan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 26 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.546 of 2021
Bhajan Singh ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mohd. Matloob,
learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA, for the State.
Mr. Shobit Saharia, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Government
Order dated 30.09.2020, whereby a vigilance inquiry was directed
against him. The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari
quashing the said order and the proceedings pursuant thereto,
contending that the action is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and
violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 20 of the Constitution.
2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner joined service as an Assistant
Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam in 1984, was promoted as an Executive
Engineer in 1992, a Superintending Engineer in 2002, and a Chief
Engineer in 2005, upon opting for service in the newly created State of
Uttarakhand. In 2009, he was appointed as officiating Managing
Director of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. Pursuant to the framing of the
Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (Managing
Director) Rules, 2011, appointments were to be made by promotion
1
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
from amongst Chief Engineers. In 2012, the appointment of another
officer as Managing Director was challenged by the Petitioner and
ultimately quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.08.2013,
consequent to which the Petitioner was promoted as Managing
Director on regular basis by notification dated 19.12.2013.
3. During his tenure, several complaints alleging corruption and
misuse of office were filed against him. According to the Petitioner ,
such complaints were examined at the departmental level and rejected
as false.
4. On 27.04.2020, the Petitioner was notified to retire on
30.09.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation. On 29.07.2020,
Dr. Neeraj Kherwal, IAS, was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct a
preliminary inquiry into the complaints, and on 31.07.2020, the
Petitioner was transferred to the post of Advisor, which he challenged
in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 216 of 2020. On the very date of his
retirement, i.e. 30.09.2020, the impugned order was issued directing a
vigilance inquiry.
5. Pursuant thereto, the Inquiry Officer directed the Petitioner to
furnish his PAN, bank account particulars, and financial details,
including those of his family members. The Petitioner , by reply dated
11.11.2020, denied the allegations and contended that the complaints
had already been rejected earlier. The Respondents, however, assert that
despite repeated reminders, the Petitioner failed to provide the
requisite information.
6. It further appears that earlier public interest litigations, PIL No.
197 of 2019, PIL No. 10 of 2020 (S/B), and PIL No. 09 of 2020,were
filed on similar allegations, in which the State defended the
Petitionerand the matters were either withdrawn or disposed of.
7. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, initially
passed an interim order on 30.06.2021 staying the operation of the
2
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
Government Order dated 30.09.2020. Thereafter, by order dated
10.09.2024, the interim protection was vacated and the Vigilance
Department was permitted to proceed with the inquiry, with a further
direction to the Petitioner to extend full cooperation in the course of
such inquiry.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
present challenge is directed only to the Government Order dated
30.09.2020, which directs initiation of a vigilance inquiry, and not to
any criminal case or charge sheet. It was argued that the record
discloses a sequence of complaints that have already been examined at
the departmental level and found to be baseless. Learned Senior
Counsel further relied on the material placed on record by the
Petitioner, including the counter-affidavits filed by the State in earlier
proceedings, to contend that the allegations stood effectively closed and
that there was no fresh material to justify reopening the matter.
9. Developing the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel
argued that the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness and mala
fides. Attention was invited to the dates. The preliminary inquiry officer
was appointed on 29.07.2020. The Petitioner was shifted to the post of
Advisor on 31.07.2020, which posting was alleged to be outside the
statutory framework of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975,
as adapted in Uttarakhand. On 27.04.2020, the Petitioner had already
been notified to superannuate on 30.09.2020. The vigilance order was
then issued on the very date of superannuation.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this chronology discloses
a premeditated design to stigmatise the Petitioner upon exit,
notwithstanding the earlier departmental consideration which had
exonerated him.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned
order is a non-speaking direction, as it neither refers to any fresh
3
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
complaint nor records any preliminary verification capable of satisfying
the test against a roving inquiry. It was urged that the State
Government's own guidelines governing vigilance action mandate the
formation of a prima facie opinion founded on fresh and tangible
material. According to learned Senior Counsel, no such material has
been placed by the Respondents.
12. The initiation of proceedings, therefore, amounts to nothing more
than a fishing expedition, which this Court, in exercise of its
constitutional writ jurisdiction, is bound to restrain.
13. On the question of legal bar, learned Senior Counsel contended
that although Article 20 is primarily concerned with criminal
prosecution, its guarantee against double jeopardy reflects a larger
constitutional policy against repeated proceedings on the same factual
substratum. It was argued that once the same allegations were
examined at the highest level and rejected, and once the State itself
defended the Petitioner in connected public law proceedings on
identical facts, the State is estopped from initiating a vigilance probe on
the same foundation without showing any new incriminating material.
14. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the prior public interest
litigations and service writs. It was submitted that PIL No. 197 of 2019
was withdrawn only after the Division Bench indicated that it would be
dismissed. Writ Petition No. 10 of 2020 and PIL No. 9 of 2020 were
disposed of without any adverse finding. In each of these matters, the
State filed counter-affidavits defending the Petitioner. Learned Senior
Counsel argued that the State cannot now turn around and rely upon the
very same allegations to direct a vigilance inquiry, particularly when
the relevant annexures show that identical allegations were the subject
of those proceedings.
15. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that the requisitions
issued post-retirement, calling for PAN and bank details of the
4
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
Petitioner as well as of his family members, are overbroad and
disproportionate. It was argued that even if a limited inquiry were
lawful, it cannot authorise intrusive demands without a proper
foundation and without identifying the specific transactions under
inquiry. The Petitioner, it is said, responded on 11.11.2020, denying the
allegations and pointing out that the complaints were old and already
rejected, yet the Respondents persisted with generalised requisitions.
16. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State
submitted that there has been no formal vigilance inquiry into the
allegations to date. What the Petitioner relies upon are departmental
comments and administrative notings that had examined certain
complaints only for limited purposes. Learned AGA, however,
submitted that such administrative consideration cannot foreclose the
initiation of a statutory vigilance inquiry, which alone is empowered to
comprehensively examine allegations of corruption, disproportionate
assets, or abuse of office.
17. Learned AGA relied upon the scheme of the U.P. Vigilance
Establishment Act, 1965, as applicable in Uttarakhand, along with the
Notification dated 12.02.1965, to submit that the Vigilance
Establishment is empowered to investigate offences of corruption and
allied misconduct against public servants. It was submitted that the
impugned order merely sets in motion a fact-finding process by the
competent vigilance agency, which is well within its jurisdiction. The
High Court in writ jurisdiction ought not to interdict an investigative
step at the threshold, particularly when no prosecution has been
launched and no prejudice is shown beyond the inconvenience of
cooperating.
18. On the Petitioner's plea of earlier closure, learned AGA
submitted that there is no adjudication on merits by a judicial or quasi-
judicial forum that would attract res judicata or issue estoppel.
5
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
Departmental comments do not constitute a bar to a vigilance probe.
The prior public interest litigations did not culminate in any
adjudication exonerating the Petitioner. A withdrawal or a summary
disposal in a PIL context cannot be treated as a clean chit. Therefore,
the contention that the State is estopped from investigating is
misconceived.
19. As to the timing of the order, learned AGA submitted that the
allegation of mala fides is without particulars and is not borne out by
any material. The initiation of a vigilance process on 30.09.2020 does
not by itself establish any oblique motive. The Petitioner's retirement
does not extinguish the State's power to inquire into acts committed
during service. The law recognises that investigations into offences of
corruption and related misconduct can continue post-retirement, subject
to statutory requirements at the stage of prosecution.
20. Learned AGA further submitted that the requisitions seeking
PAN, bank account particulars and related financial information are not
overbroad in the context of corruption inquiries, where the flow of
funds and beneficial ownership are often traced through family
members. The requisitions were made after repeated notices and remain
essential for effective inquiry. The Petitioner's stance of non-
cooperation has delayed the process and cannot be a ground to quash
the initiation itself.
21. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 4 adopted the submissions
of the learned AGA and added that the allegations span the award of
contracts and alleged pecuniary advantage. It was submitted that the
Petitioner's reply dated 11.11.2020 is a bare denial, whereas the
vigilance agency requires objective data to verify or falsify the
allegations. Without the cooperation sought, the agency cannot even
conduct preliminary verification. Learned Counsel submitted that the
6
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
writ petition is premature and is an attempt to stall a lawful inquiry into
serious allegations affecting a public utility body.
22. Learned Counsel for RespondentNo. 3 supported the State and
submitted that the administrative decisions in 2020, including the
appointment of a preliminary inquiry officer and personnel postings,
were taken in the ordinary course of administration and cannot be read
as evidence of mala fides. It was argued that the Petitioner 's challenge
is essentially to the wisdom of initiating an inquiry. The court ought not
to substitute its view at such a nascent stage and should allow the
statutory process to unfold in accordance with law.
23. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
24. The challenge raised is to the Government Order dated
30.09.2020, whereby a vigilance inquiry was directed against the
Petitioner, who had demitted office as Managing Director of
Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam on the same day. The issues that fall for
determination are:
(i) whether the initiation of the inquiry suffers from arbitrariness or
mala fides, and
(ii) (ii) whether the prior administrative consideration of complaints
by the Department, as approved by the Chief Minister, precludes
the initiation of a formal vigilance investigation.
25. The U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, as adopted by the
State of Uttarakhand, lays down the statutory foundation for
investigation into offences of corruption and allied misconduct by
public servants. Section 2 of the Act defines the Vigilance
Establishment, and Section 3 empowers the State Government to
extend its jurisdiction to offences specified in the Schedule. By
Notification dated 12.02.1965, the Vigilance Establishment was
authorised to inquire into allegations of corruption, abuse of official
position, and related offences. The statutory competence of the
7
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
Vigilance Establishment to investigate allegations against the
Petitioner, who held the office of Managing Director of a State utility,
stands firmly established.
26. The reliance placed on Articles 14, 16, 19, and 20 of the
Constitution has also been considered. The principle of equality
enshrined in Article 14 undoubtedly mandates that administrative
action must be free from arbitrariness. In the present case, however, the
initiation of a vigilance inquiry cannot be characterised as arbitrary
merely because earlier departmental observationsreflected a different
view. So long as the authority competent in law has jurisdiction and
forms an opinion that the allegations merit investigation, such initiation
cannot be interdicted solely on the ground that an administrative
authority had previously taken a contrary position.
27. As to Article 20, the protection against double jeopardy operates
in the sphere of criminal prosecution and punishment. It cannot be
invoked to bar a statutory vigilance inquiry, which is an investigatory
process and has not culminated in prosecution, much less punishment.
The plea of double jeopardy is therefore inapposite in the present
factual matrix.
28. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has laid emphasis on
the timing of the order, namely its issuance on the date of
superannuation, as indicative of mala fides. While the chronology of
events may lend an appearance of harshness, mala fides must be
specifically pleaded and duly established. The record does not reveal
any personal animus or extraneous consideration attributable to the
authority issuing the order. The principle that allegations of mala fides
cannot rest on conjecture but must be substantiated by cogent material
is too well settled to warrant reiteration. Mere coincidence between the
date of superannuation and the initiation of inquiry, without more, does
not meet that standard.
8
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
29. The submission that earlier public interest litigations and writ
petitions on the same allegations were withdrawn or disposed of, and
that the State therein defended the Petitioner, does not alter the legal
position. The withdrawal or summary disposal of a PIL does not
amount to an adjudication exonerating the Petitioner.
30. It is also of significance that the Respondents have drawn
attention to the Petitioner's lack of cooperation in the inquiry. Notices
were admittedly issued seeking the Petitioner's PAN, bank account
details, and financial particulars, as well as those of his immediate
family members. The Petitioner does not dispute receipt of such
requisitions, but contends that they were overbroad.
31. In corruption inquiries, however, financial scrutiny necessarily
extends to immediate family, as beneficial ownership or pecuniary
advantage may be routed through such relations. The requisitions,
therefore, cannot be said to be irrelevant or disproportionate, and the
Petitioner's non-compliance has, in fact, contributed to the delay in
progress of the inquiry.
32. In evaluating the rival submissions, it must be borne in mind that
this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters of investigation is
narrowly circumscribed. The settled principle is that the High Court
will not ordinarily interfere at the stage of initiation of an inquiry or
investigation unless the action is shown to be patently without
jurisdiction or vitiated by demonstrable mala fides. The power of
judicial review is intended to prevent abuse of authority, not to stifle
lawful investigative processes at their very inception.
33. In the present case, the Government Order dated 30.09.2020 has
been issued in exercise of statutory competence, is traceable to the U.P.
Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, and directs only an inquiry into
allegations. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any
material irregularity, absence of jurisdiction, or mala fides of such
9
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7787
nature as would justify quashing of the order at the very threshold. On
the contrary, the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the
Petitioner's position as head of a public utility, makes it imperative that
a full inquiry be allowed to proceed in the public interest.
34. For these reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no
ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made
out at this stage.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Government Order dated 30.09.2020, being referable to statutory competence and confined to directing an inquiry into allegations, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The objections raised by the Petitioner primarily on earlier administrative notings, which do not foreclose the initiation of a vigilance inquiry under the law. The plea of mala fides is unsubstantiated, and no jurisdictional error is demonstrated.
Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the public office held by the Petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to exercise writ jurisdiction in his favour.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.) 26.08.2025 SB SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1 c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, BINJOLA serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE 29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.09.02 14:28:07 +05'30' 10 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors-
Ashish Naithani J.