Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 15 March, 2013
R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :1 :
Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: March 15, 2013
Raj Kumar Versus Union of India & others
Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Geeta Sanghwal, Advocate,
for Union of India.
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
*****
This order will dispose of Review Application No.180 of 2011 in Amended Civil Writ Petition No.16517 of 2008 (Raj Kumar Versus Union of India and others) and Criminal Misc.No.M-2025 of 2013 (Raj Kumar Versus Union of India and others).
Claiming himself to be a whistle-blower, the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition highlighting large scale open corruption and scams to the tune of `500 crores in the respondent-3 Organisation. As per the petitioner, he has burnt his fingers for making this present approach and, thus, has faced continuous victimization and harassment at the hands of influential corrupt officers of Sports Authority of India. As per the petitioner, the corruption has rather increased many-fold even after issuance of R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :2 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 notice to the respondents in Criminal Misc.No.69993-M of 2006. In this case, the CBI has registered FIR No.RP-86(A)/96/DLI on 13.12.1996, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the petitioner, investigations in this case were not conducted in accordance with law and even the investigating officers were changed. As per the petitioner, based on this unfair investigation, trial was conducted against two accused persons, which appears to have ended in their acquittal. The petitioner would make number of grievances against the manner of trial as well and the fact that CBI never filed any appeal against the same. This seems to have happened in the year 2005. Petitioner would further allege that wife of accused S.S.Roy, the then respondent No.4, remained gainfully employed with Delhi Doordarshan and also received subsistence allowed from Sports Authority of India by filing false affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the reinstatement of respondent No.3 after acquittal was without obtaining any advice from CVC. It is alleged that said respondent was paid salary and other allowances to the tune of `20.00 lacs. The petitioner states to have submitted a complaint on 19.6.2006. Instead of acting on the complaint, the petitioner was not permitted to perform his duty and even his salary was stopped. He apparently had approached this Court by way of a Criminal Misc.Petition for handing over the investigation to independent agency, like CBI on 9.11.2006. As per the petitioner, despite opportunity no reply was filed and rather disciplinary R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :3 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 proceedings were initiated against him. These proceedings are termed as illegal in which the petitioner statedly was exonerated. Having given this background, the petitioner has made reference to the present writ petition, which he filed on 17.9.2008. This writ petition came up for hearing before the Court when notice to resolve the issue of non-release of salary of the petitioner was issued. The petitioner later filed Misc.Application bringing out the conduct of respondent No.3 to the notice of the Court. Respondent No.4 then is alleged to have passed an order on 6.5.2009 punishing the petitioner. Having given his tale of woe, the petitioner in nut-shell has raised a grievance to seek protection against the continuous victimization and harassment. Petitioner accordingly filed an amended petition in this regard.
On 26.5.2009, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to re-submit his joining report and assume charge at Sonepat, which was his present place of posting. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) was appointed as Monitoring Authority to ensure that the petitioner actually presents himself and join duties. He was directed to remain present or send some other senior officer of the Administration in the Northern Regional Centre of the Sports Authority of India at Bahalgarh. The Director, Northern Regional Centre of the Sports Authority of India was asked to maintain a register in which the petitioner's arrival and departure time was to be recorded and the same was also to be initialed by the petitioner and Director himself. The disciplinary proceedings in progress against the R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :4 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 petitioner were stayed. It was thereafter that application was moved to amend the writ petition, which was allowed on 17.7.2009. Thereafter the respondents prayed for various adjournments to file reply.
On 14.7.2010, counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a statement before the court that CBI had taken cognizance of the complaint and a Central Vigilance Officer has already held a preliminary inquiry, pursuant to which some officers have been charge-sheeted as well. The Court accordingly adjourned the case for completion of inquiry. In this background, case came up for hearing on 8.2.2011 and the Court passed the following order:-
"The petitioner has long list of grievances to raise in the present writ petition. While working in Sports Authority of India (SAI), the petitioner claims to have noticed various malpractices and acts of corruption being indulged in the offices. He, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to seek direction for investigating into all those cases and instances of corruption etc. by some independent agency like CBI.
During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was proceeded against on the charge of absence. He was found guilty and awarded some punishment also. The petitioner, accordingly has amended this writ petition to challenge this punishment as well on the ground that the person, who is the whistleblower, needs protection and this is so provided under the relevant instructions/rules. After referring to various allegations disclosed in the petition, the petitioner has made two fold prayer during the course of arguments. The counsel would first plead for directions to R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :5 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 the respondents to get the matter investigated preferably by the CBI, so that the action can be taken against those, who were accused of committing misconduct and acts of corruption etc. Second prayer is for quashing of the punishment awarded to the petitioner.
Since the petitioner is a Central Government employee, he would have to first challenge the punishment awarded to him either by filing an appeal and thereafter approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, which would have jurisdiction to deal with issue of punishment awarded to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position and seeks permission to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to challenge the punishment. Thus, liberty is granted to the petitioner and he may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law to challenge the punishment imposed upon him. The petitioner can challenge the order of punishment on all the grounds, which are available to him including the ground that the punishment has followed because of the complaint, which he had filed against high officials and so the action had been taken against him.
Since the petitioner has made some serious allegations of corruption against the officials, it would be appropriate to direct him to support all those allegations by filing a supporting affidavit. In fact this is so urged by the counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 to say that they will not hesitate to comply with any direction for investigation into the case, but the petitioner must support all these allegations, with affidavit for which he is seeking investigation and he should substantiate the same by filing affidavit, so that if these are found false, then action can be taken against the petitioner. Counsel for the R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :6 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 petitioner says that the petitioner would be ready to file an affidavit in support of the allegations, which he has made in the petition.
Let the petitioner file an application disclosing all the allegations which he wants to be investigated by independent agency by filing supporting affidavit, so that further action can be taken into the matter."
The petitioner accordingly filed an affidavit, which was taken on record on 24.2.2011. This affidavit was not found to be satisfying the requirement as projected in order dated 8.2.2011. A further opportunity was allowed to the petitioner to file a proper affidavit indicating which allegations he would support by way of affidavit so as to consider issuing of direction for investigation. The affidavit was finally submitted and the writ petition was disposed of on 15.3.2011 by passing the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner has submitted an affidavit of the petitioner, where he has solemnly affirmed to declare that allegations contained in para No.2(1), 2(3) to 2(14), 2 (18) to 2(21) and 2(23) to 2(27) of the amended writ petition are true and correct and the petitioner would support them as correct. In addition, the petitioner has also deposed that allegations contained in para Nos.13 to 15, 20, 39 and 106 to 107 of the amended writ petition are also true and correct and the petitioner would support these by way of the present affidavit. Aforementioned affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the light of order passed on 8.2.2009, which is as under:-
Since the petitioner has made some serious allegations of corruption against the officials, it would be appropriate to direct him to support all those allegations by filing a supporting affidavit. In fact this is so urged by R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :7 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 the counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 to say that they will not hesitate to comply with any direction for investigation into the case, but the petitioner must support all these allegations, with affidavit for which he is seeking investigation and he should substantiate the same by filing affidavit, so that if these are found false, then action can be taken against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would be ready to file an affidavit in support of the allegations, which he has made in the petition.
Let the petitioner file an application disclosing all the allegations which he wants to be investigated by independent agency by filing supporting affidavit, so that further action can be taken into the matter."
Since the petitioner has now filed a requisite affidavit, respondent No.2 may be asked to investigate the issues now substantiated by the petitioner by filing an affidavit. The result of the investigation done shall be intimated to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner still feels aggrieved against any action, he would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter filed an application for review of this order. A separate application for was also filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4. Notice of such applications was issued to non-applicants. Thereafter, the petitioner has been seeking adjournment on one ground or the other. The CBI later on withdrew the application for review. Application filed by Union of India for review of the order remained under consideration.
As is noticed in order dated 29.11.2011, the petitioner had not only filed the present petition, but had also filed a Public Interest R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :8 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 Litigation in the year 2010, where some of the similar prayer was made. When asked to explain the same, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Public Interest Litigation was pertaining to Sonepat, whereas the present petition was concerning the allegations which pertained to Chandigarh. This was not found to be a reason to invoke the remedy before this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation and then to file a separate petition. These two cases could have easily been joined in one petition. It was also expected from the petitioner to disclose that he had filed a Public Interest Litigation while had argued the present petition before this Court. Alternatively, the petitioner was required to disclose in the Public Interest Litigation which he had filed subsequently that he had already approached this court by way of present petition. Since the petitioner was appearing in person in the Public Interest Litigation filed by him, the counsel representing him in this petition was not aware of this fact. On his request, the case was adjourned with the direction to CBI not to proceed with the investigation as was earlier ordered. Thereafter, the case again had to be adjourned either on the request made by the counsel for the Union of India or by the petitioner. The case thereafter had remained pending before this Court. Finding the evasive attitude on the part of the counsel representing the parties, this Court was forced to impose certain costs on those who were found evading to make submissions and in this manner the case has been adjourned.
While this review application was pending before this R.A.No.180 of 2011 in :9 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 court, the petitioner through another counsel filed another Criminal Misc.No.-M 2025 of 2013. This petition also came up for hearing before this court and was ordered to be heard with the review application. The prayer in this petition again is to hand over the investigation of FIR No.180 dated 8.6.2011 to some independent agency preferably the CBI. The petitioner obviously has chosen to pursue his onslaught against respondents though apparently he may not have much locus in filing this Criminal Misc.Petition seeking transfer of this investigation.
Not only that, the petitioner had also filed a review application for reviewing the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.18267 of 2010 which he had not disclosed before this Court while his prayer in the writ petition was being considered. The Division Bench apparently had disposed of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, but the petitioner had sought review of the same, which was disposed of on 26.4.2011. It is noticed in the order that Division Bench had already ordered that the petitioner may file a complaint in the jurisdiction of the police station giving details of the commission of offences alleged under different provisions of law by the various firms who had supplied sports equipments/goods to the State of Haryana. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-Incharge of the police station was to register the same, if the statements disclosed commission of any cognizable offence. Obviously, the same was to be investigated in accordance with law. If the petitioner was left with any grievance against the investigation undertaken, it was open for R.A.No.180 of 2011 in : 10 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 him to approach the court again for seeking appropriate relief. On the strength of this order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Misc.Petition No.2025 of 2013.
Yet another review application is filed by the petitioner in CWP No.18267 of 2010, which is disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.7.2012. The petitioner had sought review and a clarification that Sports Authority of India was neither a party respondent in this writ petition nor any relief was sought against it in the said writ petition filed in Public Interest. The Division Bench disposed of the review application by observing that it is a matter of record that the factum of filing and pendency of CWP No.16517 of 2008 has been duly disclosed in para No.5 of the writ petition. Even if all this is accepted, the petitioner obviously has misled the court in CWP No.16517 of 2008 while praying for direction to the CBI to investigate this case. The prayer in the amended petition filed by the petitioner was for handing over the investigations of mass level rampant corruption in SAI. Once the petitioner had already been given liberty to file an application before the police on the basis of subsequent petition filed, obviously he was required to disclose the same while the present writ petition was heard and disposed of by this court. Thus, the petitioner has made an attempt to over reach this court by one way or the other and had been able to get an order without disclosing the complete facts. Once the petitioner had been given a liberty to file a complaint, which he did and FIR had also been registered, there was no reason or cause for him still to pursue R.A.No.180 of 2011 in : 11 : Amended CWP No.16517 of 2008 his claim in the present petition.
In view of the position as noticed above, the case for review of the order dated 15.3.2011 directing investigation by CBI is called for. It is so ordered. Review application is accordingly allowed and directions issued by this court to CBI to conduct investigation in this case are withdrawn.
I am also not inclined to interfere in the Criminal Misc.Petition filed by the petitioner where he is now wanting to open yet another chapter by taking clue from the order passed by a Division Bench in the review application filed by the petitioner. Once the FIR has been registered and is being investigated, no case is made out for transfer of this investigation to any independent agency as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner has in a way misused the process of court in making one approach after another without much justification.
Accordingly Criminal Misc.No.-M 2025 of 2013 is also dismissed.
March 15, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE