Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Surajit Panigrahi vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 August, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
13.08.2019
Ct. No.8
S/L No.25
KS
W. P. No.1453 (W) of 2019
Surajit Panigrahi
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari
Mr. Kumarjyoti Tewari
Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak
.....For the Petitioner
Mr. Kaushik Chanda
Mr. N. L. Singhania
Mr. Radhamohan Roy
.....For the Respondents
Learned Additional Solicitor General produces the records as called for by the order dated July 29, 2019. Such records are returned to the learned Additional Solicitor General upon perusal.
The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the complaint dated June 20, 2017. The petitioner contends that, the petitioner complained on June 20, 2017 about corruption in appointment of retired personnel at Bose Institute. Neither the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) nor the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) of Bose Institute took any steps thereon.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the report of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) relevant in the context. He submits that, CAG found that, various authorities allowed extension of tenure of various personnel without the requisite approval of the appropriate person. He draws the attention of the report of CAG being, Report No.26 of 2016 particularly to Paragraph No.3.7.2 (Annexure - P/3) thereof. He submits that, Bose Institute and the persons in Management and Control thereof, are guilty of draining public money by such wrong appointments. Such persons caused loss to 2 the State Exchequer. CVO ought to have been taken appropriate steps on the complaint. Proceedings ought to have been initiated against the persons involved.
Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CVC and the CVO submits that, upon receipt of the complaint dated June 28, 2017 from the petitioner, CVC by its writing dated August 10, 2017 called upon the CVO to submit a report. CVO in turn wrote a letter dated September 19, 2018 to the Bose Institute calling for a report. A Confidential Report was submitted by the Bose Institute to the CVO. CVO on consideration of the same found that, there was no 'Vigilance Angle' to the complaint. Thereafter, CVO by the writing dated April 16, 2019 informed the CVC that, there was no 'Vigilance Angle' in the complaint concerned. According to him, CVC and CVO having acted in terms of the Vigilance Manual, 2017 no further action need be taken. He draws the attention of the Court to the definition of 'Vigilance Angle' as defined in the Vigilance Manual, 2017. He submits that, all errors of judgement are not corruption and that, 'Vigilance Angle' may not be involved therein. Moreover, he draws the attention of the Court to the conclusion of Paragraph 3.7.2 of the Report No.26 of 2016 of CAG. He submits that, CAG itself was aware that, the extension of service was granted very selectively and judiciously after thorough review and only against the posts that were lying vacant. Consequently, the CVC did not take any further action on the persons responsible. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the Court should factor such the same while considering the allegations of the petitioner.
There may or may not be a departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner. Merely because a departmental proceeding is pending against the 3 petitioner, it does not preclude the petitioner form approaching the Court and placing materials to substantiate his allegations with regard to vigilance.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioner complains that, the persons in management and control of Bose Institute is guilty of causing loss to the State Exchequer by granting appointments on irregular basis to retired employees. In support of such contention reliance is placed on Paragraph 3.7.2 of the CAG Report No.26 of 2016.
No doubt, Paragraph No.3.7.2 of the C.A.G. Report No.26 of 2016 deals with irregular grant of extension of service to the retired employees of Bose Institute. It goes on to accept the observation that, extension of service was granted very selectively and judiciously after thorough peer review and only against posts there was lying vacant.
Vigilance Manual, 2017 defines 'Vigilance Angle'. Paragraph 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 are relevant in the present context which are as follows:‐ "1.4.1 Vigilance angle is obvious in the following acts:
(a) Demanding and/or accepting gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act or for using his influence with any other official.
(b) Obtaining valuable thing, without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person with whom he has or is likely to have official dealings or his subordinates have official dealings or where he can exert influence.
(c) Obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant.
(d) Possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 4
(e) Cases of misappropriation, forgery or cheating or other similar criminal offences.
1.4.2. There are, however, other irregularities where circumstances will have to be weighed carefully to take a view whether the officer's integrity is in doubt. Gross or willful negligence; recklessness in decision making blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of discretion in excess, where no ostensible public interest is evident; failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed of required transactions and issues in time; cause of undue loss or a concomitant gain to an individual or a set of individuals/ a party of parties; these are some of the irregularities where the disciplinary authority with the help of the CVO should carefully study the case and weigh the circumstances to come to a conclusion whether there is reasonable ground to doubt the integrity of the officer concerned." Blatant violation of systems and procedures by itself does not tantamount to existence of a 'Vigilance Angle'. The same has to be coupled with something more for the action to qualify as a Vigilance action.
In the facts of the present case, on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, CVC called upon CVO to submit a report on August 10, 2017. CVO called upon the Bose Institute by its writing dated September 19, 2018 for a report. Bose Institute by its writing dated November 2, 2018 respond thereto. These are Confidential Reports.
In such circumstances, CVO and CVC upon consideration of the materials before them, came to a finding that, 'Vigilance Angle' was not available. They, therefore, reported accordingly.
5
In the facts of the present case, since, the authorities involved have taken a decision and have given reasons for the same, interference by a Writ Court is not called for.
W. P. No.1453 (W) of 2019 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)