Telangana High Court
Manoj K Badal vs The Central Vigilance Commission on 10 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_30421_2025
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30421 of 2025
10th April, 2026
Between:
Manoj K. Badal, S/o Dr. Binod Narayan Jha
... Petitioner
AND
1. The Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, and others
... Respondents.
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, that while he was serving as Assistant General Manager (HR) at the Bangalore Head Office of Can Fin Homes Ltd., he was responsible for overseeing pan- India recruitment. During this period, the GM-HR of Respondent No.7 - CanFin Homes Ltd repeatedly pressured him to select preferred candidates, often sharing profiles of unqualified individuals through WhatsApp and threatening dismissal for non-compliance. According to the petitioner, this led to the systematic exclusion of meritorious candidates and manipulation of recruitment processes, including alleged alteration of marksheets.
1.1. Acting in good faith, the petitioner submitted a formal whistleblower complaint on 26.10.2024, at approximately 2:21 p.m. via email addressed to respondents No.7 and 9 (MD of CanFin Homes, and Dy.GM Canara Bank-cum-DMD CanFin Homes Ltd), detailing instances of 2 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J corruption and malpractice; and within roughly four hours, at around 6:30 p.m. on the same day, he received a transfer order dated 26.10.2024, issued by the same GM-HR, relocating him from Bangalore to the Nampally branch in Hyderabad. It is alleged thatthis transfer is a retaliatory and punitive transfer. Subsequently, the petitioner sent an email dated 28.10.2024requesting a review of the transfer, but his request was rejected.
1.2. On 30.10.2024, he sent a detailed email to respondent No.8 - Chairman, Audit Committee, CanFin Homes, elaborating on his whistleblower allegations and enclosing evidence of recruitment irregularities. In response, an Inquiry Officer, (who is an Assistant General Manager, junior in rank to the accused General Manager-HR) was appointed, which the petitioner contends violates principles of natural justice. It is stated that his whistleblower complaint gained national media attention, including coverage by news channels like NDTV Profit, during which his identity was disclosed, in breach of confidentiality protections mandated under the company's whistleblower policy and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
1.3. The petitioner further states that he pursuedexternal remedies, by submitting a complaint via email dated 26.12.2024tothe respondent No.3
- Reserve Bank of India, at Chennai, followed by multiple reminders. He then filed a formal whistleblower complaint dated 27.12.2024, and sent successive reminders dated 07.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 04.03.2025, and 31.03.2025. He also refers to further communications dated 15.05.2025 and a final letter personally delivered on 01.08.2025 at the Central Vigilance Commission office in New Delhi. Despite these efforts, no substantive action has been taken. In one instance, he received an email dated 13.02.2025 from the Agencies and Co-ordination Group of the Department 3 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J of Supervision, Reserve Bank of India, informing him that his complaint had been forwarded to the National Housing Bank for necessary action, however, this also yielded no result. Additionally, his complaint registered with the 1st respondent - Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, on 01.08.2025 was reportedly forwarded to the 2nd respondent - Chief Vigilance Officer, Canara Bank, Bangalore,however, there has been no progress on his complaints.
1.4. It is alleged that, meanwhile the retaliatory measures against the petitioner have escalated. He received a Show Cause notice dated 23.05.2025, followed by a suspension order dated 02.06.2025 issued by respondents No.6 and 7, by alleging that the petitioner resorted to actions "prejudicial to the interest of the company", and by linking his whistleblowing the alleged misconduct.A charge sheet was subsequently issued on 21.06.2025, which is allegedly done without following due process. Challenging these actions, he filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 18485 of 2025 before this Court, and the writ petition wasdismissed on 26.09.2025on grounds of maintainability under Article 12 of the Constitution, with liberty to seek alternative remedies. Thereafter, the received a departmental inquiry letter dated 27.09.2025, the very next day after dismissal of the writ petition, and he has been continuously targeted.
1.5. It is stated that due to the disclosure of his identity and the sensitive nature of his allegations, he began receiving threats to his life and privacy. Consequently, he filed complaints dated 29.09.2025 and 01.10.2025 before respondent No.5-Inspector of Police, seeking police protection.
1.6. It is contended that his whistleblowing about the systemic corruption, favoritism, and manipulation of recruitment processes by the GM-HR and complicity or inaction by other respondents, cannot be 4 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J categorized as "misconduct" or "acts prejudicial to the company's interests", and therefore the disciplinary proceedings, and internal inquiry is fundamentally biased as admittedly, the enquiry is conducted by an officer subordinate to the very official against whom he blew the whistle, violating the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and6 essentially contending that the petitioner is attempting to circumvent the earlier order dated 26.09.2025 in W.P. No. 18584 of 2025, wherein this Court had already held that no writ lies against Can Fin Homes Ltd. as it is neither a "State" nor an instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution. According to the respondents, the present petition is a colorable exercise designed to indirectly achieve what the petitioner could not directly obtain, namely, judicial intervention in an employment dispute with a private entity.
2.1. It is contended that this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 18584 of 2025, dated 26.09.2025), granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternate remedies, and the petitioner did not avail himself of appropriate statutory or contractual remedies but instead filed the present writ petition, attempting to bring Canara Bank within the ambit of the dispute. It is contended that this as a deliberate litigation strategy, asserting that the petitioner has "repeatedly mentioned" Can Fin Homes Ltd. as a group company of Canara Bank solely to invoke writ jurisdiction. They further argue that such an attempt is legally impermissible and falls within the doctrine of colourable exercise of power, as the petitioner is effectively re-litigating an issue already decided against him.
2.2. The respondents then set out the institutional and statutory framework to justify their non-involvement. They assert that Canara Bank 5 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J and Can Fin Homes Ltd., are distinct legal entities, notwithstanding that Canara Bank holds 29.99% of the shareholding in Can Fin Homes. They specifically point out that under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission extends only to entities where the Central Government's shareholding is not less than 51% of the paid-up capital. Since Can Fin Homes falls below this threshold, it does not come under the vigilance or supervisory purview of Canara Bank or its Chief Vigilance Officer. In addition, they invoke Section 15 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 to contend that proceedings against the Vigilance Commission are statutorily barred, and therefore it is contended that no relief could be sought against respondent No. 2-Chief Vigilance Officer; and it is therefore contended that the petitioner's request for a direction to Canara Bank to conduct an enquiry is legally untenable.
2.3. It is contended that the allegations concerning the petitioner's employment as Assistant General Manager (HR), the recruitment process, and the alleged misconduct of the respondent No.7(GM-HR), are entirely matters pertaining to Can Fin Homes Ltd., and not within the knowledge or domain of Canara Bank. Further, the respondents deny awareness of the events, including the whistleblower complaint allegedly submitted on 26.10.2024 at approximately 2:21 p.m., the subsequent transfer order issued around 6:30 p.m. the same day, the email dated 28.10.2024 seeking review, the detailed complaint dated 30.10.2024 to the Audit Committee, the alleged media disclosure of identity, the Show Cause notice dated 23.05.2025, the suspension order dated 02.06.2025, and the charge sheet dated 21.06.2025. It is contended that these allegations are exclusively against Can Fin Homes Ltd. The respondents also deny knowledge of the petitioner's subsequent complaints and correspondence, including the email dated 26.12.2024 to the 3rd respondent, the reminders dated 07.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 04.03.2025, 6 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J and 31.03.2025, as well as the alleged complaint registered on 01.08.2025 as Complaint No. 112378 of 2025, the respondents again deny knowledge. Further, the respondents do not admit receipt or processing of such communications within their domain, and that the grievance lies elsewhere and must be pursued before the appropriate forum or authority competent over CanFin Homes Ltd.
2.4. It is contended that the entire grievance arises out of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and Can Fin Homes Ltd., and not with Canara Bank. Consequently, they contend that no cause of action is disclosed against respondents No. 2 and 6. It is further asserted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy, as per the order of this Court dated 26.09.2025 in earlier writ petition but the petitioner deliberately chose not to pursue alternative remedy.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents No. 7 and 8, essentially contending that M/s Can Fin Homes Ltd. is a private company governed by the Companies Act, 2013, in which Canara Bank holds only 29.99% shareholding, with the remaining shares held by foreign investors, LLPs, Trusts,HUFs, venture capital funds, and insurance companies. The company is neither a "State" nor an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. On this basis, they argue that the relief sought--particularly a direction to respondent No. 2 under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 to conduct an enquiryis legally untenable, since the Act applies only to public servants and government-controlled entities, a category into which Can Fin Homes Ltd. does not fall. It is contended that earlier Writ Petition No. 18485 of 2025 challenging disciplinary proceedings, was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2025 as CanFin Homes is not State instrumentality under 7 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J Article 12 of the Constitution of India, by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. It is contended that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition again under Article 226, merely reframing his relief by seeking directions against the Chief Vigilance Officer of Canara Bank based on whistleblower complaints dated 25.02.2025, 04.03.2025 (via email), 15.05.2025, and 01.08.2025.
3.1. It is contended that petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager (HR) at the Bangalore head office handling pan-India recruitment, and that his grievance stems from alleged misconduct by the GM-HR and his own whistleblower email submitted to the company. It is contended that the petitioner's detailed email dated 30.10.2024 to the Audit Committee (respondent No. 8), alleging corruption and recruitment irregularities, resulted in the appointment of an Inquiry Officer within the company, which is purely an internal matter to a private corporate structure.
3.2. It is contended that a Show Cause notice dated 23.05.2025 was issued, followed by a suspension order dated 02.06.2025, and a charge sheet on 21.06.2025; and that these actions occurred several months after the alleged whistleblower email of 30.10.2024, thereby disputing any immediate causal link with the whistleblower complaint. It is also contended that the suspension letter dated 02.06.2025 contains no reference whatsoever to whistleblowing as a reason for suspension. It is contended that now that a charge sheet has been issued, the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself in a properly conducted departmental enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice.
3.3. Addressing the petitioner's claim of media exposure and breach of confidentiality, the respondents note that the allegation--referring to coverage including NDTV Profit and disclosure of identity--is directed 8 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J against the Audit Committee of Can Fin Homes Ltd., and therefore does not give rise to any public law remedy.They further deny the petitioner's assertion that the disciplinary proceedings constitute retaliation, reiterating that the timeline and documentary record do not support such a claim.
3.4. The respondents also refute the petitioner's assertions regarding the involvement of Canara Bank (Respondent No. 6), stating that there is no documentary evidence to show that Canara Bank played any role in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The respondents also deny the petitioner's allegations of threats to life and privacy, stating unequivocally that there is no threat from Respondent Nos. 7, 8, or 9, and contending these claims as concocted for the purposes of the writ petition.
3.5. The respondents finally contend that the petitioner has adequate alternate remedies, that the present proceedings constitute an abuse of law, and that the writ petition deserves dismissal with costs.
4. In response to the Interlocutory Applications No.1, 2, and 3 of 2026, filed by respondents No.2 and 6 (i.e., Chief Vigilance Officer, Canara Bank, and Canara Bank), the petitioner filed a counter affidavit, opposing the applications by asserting that the additional documents and correspondence sought to be introduced by respondents No. 2 and 6 are fabricated, belated, and intended solely to fill gaps in their defense taken earlier. It is contended that the respondents had already filed their counter-affidavit on 12.12.2025, and that the letters now relied upon--particularly those dated 14.07.2025 and 06.08.2025--were never produced at that stage, despite allegedly being in existence. It is contended that the letters / correspondence sought to be filed now by the respondents, predates the filing of the earlier counter, and therefore, if really those communications/letters are genuine, the respondents ought to havedisclosed at earlier point of time itself, and there 9 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J is no reason for not disclosing them earlier. It is contended that their subsequent introduction, especially through a letter dated 02.01.2026 and an alleged email sent at 15:44 hours on the same day, is an afterthought lacking credibility, and such documents lack evidentiary value.
4.1. It is contended that the respondents' own pleadings are internally inconsistent. While respondents No. 2 and 6 had earlier claimed lack of knowledge regarding the alleged recruitment scam, they now assert that action was taken on his complaint, without specifying any date or producing supporting evidence, and this contradictiondemonstrates arbitrariness and suggests that the respondents acted without proper inquiry or factual basis. It is contended that Canara Bank and Can Fin Homes Ltd., are "hand in glove" and are attempting to shield anational-level recruitment scam involving bribery, favoritism, abuse of power, and violation of employment and fundamental rights.
4.2. With regard to the contention on jurisdiction and the respondents' reliance on shareholding of Canara Bank, it is contended that the authority of Central Vigilance Commission extends to matters involving public servants and misuse of public office, even where private entities are involved. It is contended that there is commonality in the Board of Directors of Canara Bank and CanFin Homes, and officers such as Deputy General Managers are deputed between the two entities, and the role of audit mechanisms, and therefore there are structural and operational linkages which demonstrate that the two entities function in close coordination, and therefore it cannot be said that the two entities are entirely separate.
4.3. The central grievance raised in this counter is that his complaint and representations--particularly the one dated 01.08.2025-- specifically sought a fair and impartial enquiry in his presence, yet the 10 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J respondents allegedly closed the matter unilaterally without his participation or even intimation to him or to the competent authority. He asserts that such action violates principles of natural justice and infringes his fundamental rights.
4.4. It is contended that the documents now relied upon and sought to be filed by the respondents, with regard to the alleged correspondence between respondents No. 1 and 2, are vague, unsupported by proof of dispatch or delivery, and the documents are devoid of essential details such as acknowledgment receipts or even proper subject dates. It is contended that none of his multiple complaints were specifically referenced in those communications, and therefore such communication is unreliable and self- serving. It is contended that the documents appear to have been mechanically created on official letterheads without contemporaneous records, with the sole purpose of protecting errant officials and Can Fin Homes Ltd. from scrutiny.
4.5. It is contended that the issues raised in the writ petition concern serious irregularities amounting to a large-scale recruitment scam requiring judicial intervention to ensure transparency and accountability, and the pre- dated documents sought to be filed now at this juncture creates any amount of doubt on their authenticity and bereft of reasons for why they could not be filed earlier. The petitioner therefore prays that the interlocutory applications may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. Heard Ms. C. Rakee Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2and 6; and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on record for respondents No.7 and 8.
11wp_30421_2025 NBK, J
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant General Manager (HR), was subjected to undue pressure by the GM-HR to manipulate recruitment processes by selecting favored and unqualified candidates, thereby compromising merit and fairness. It is contended that upon submitting a bona fide whistleblower complaint on 26.10.2024 exposing corruption, the petitioner was immediately subjected to a retaliatory and punitive transfer within hours, followed by rejection of his representation. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent inquiry was vitiated by bias, as it was conducted by an officer subordinate to the accused, violating principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner's identity was unlawfully disclosed in the media, breaching confidentiality norms. Despite repeated complaints to authorities including RBI and CVC, no effective action was taken. The petitioner alleges that retaliatory actions against him have escalated into suspension, issuance of a charge sheet, and initiation of disciplinary proceedings without due process. It is asserted that such actions are mala fide and intended to victimize the petitioner for whistleblowing. Learned counsel also contends that the additional documents sought to be filed through interlocutory applications No. 1, 2, and 3 of 2026are fabricated, belated, and lack evidentiary value, and they are being introduced only to fill lacunae in their defense. It is contended that respondents' stand is contradictory and indicative of arbitrariness, while also attempting to shield a larger recruitment scam. It is contended that the closure of petitioner's complaints without notice or participation violates principles of natural justice and infringes his fundamental rights.
7. Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 6, would contend that the present writ petition is an attempt to circumvent the earlier order dated 26.09.2025 in W.P. No. 18584 of 2025, wherein it 12 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J was conclusively held that no writ lies against Can Fin Homes Ltd. as it is not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is contended that, instead of availing the liberty granted to pursue alternative remedies, the petitioner has deliberately re-approached this Court by artificially impleading Canara Bank to invoke writ jurisdiction. The respondents submit that such a strategy amounts to re-litigation of an issue already decided and is liable to be rejected. They further contend that Canara Bank and Can Fin Homes Ltd. are distinct legal entities, and mere minority shareholding of 29.99% does not confer supervisory or control jurisdiction. It is contended that under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, jurisdiction arises only where Government shareholding exceeds 51%, which is not the case here. The respondents also rely on the statutory bar under Section 15 of the Act to contend that no relief can be sought against the Chief Vigilance Officer. It is asserted that all allegations pertain solely to the petitioner's employment with Can Fin Homes Ltd. and fall outside the knowledge or domain of Canara Bank. Learned counsel denies awareness of the alleged complaints, disciplinary actions, and correspondence relied upon by the petitioner. It is contended that no cause of action is disclosed against them and that the grievance lies against Can Fin Homes Ltd, and that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee appearing for respondents No. 7 and 8 would contend that M/s Can Fin Homes Ltd. is a private company governed by the Companies Act, 2013, with only 29.99% shareholding held by Canara Bank, and therefore it is neither a "State" nor an instrumentality under Article 12, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. It is contended that the relief sought, including a direction under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, is misconceived as the Act applies only to public servants and government-controlled bodies.
13wp_30421_2025 NBK, J Learned counsel submits that the earlier writ petition was already dismissed on 26.09.2025 on the same ground, and the present petition is a re-litigation attempt by merely reframing the relief. It is contended that the petitioner's grievances arise purely out of his employment as Assistant General Manager (HR) and relate to internal corporate matters, including recruitment issues and whistleblower complaints. The respondents assert that the petitioner's complaint dated 30.10.2024 was duly acted upon internally by appointing an Inquiry Officer. It is further contended that disciplinary proceedings, including the show cause notice, suspension, and charge sheet, were initiated independently and not as retaliation for whistleblowing. It is contended that there is no connection between the whistleblower complaint and disciplinary action. It is submitted that the petitioner will have adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. The involvement of Canara Bank is specifically denied for want of any supporting material. It is contended that the writ petition is an abuse of process, and the petitioner has alternative remedies, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, the grievance in this writ petition is that despite the petitioner raising serious allegations of corruption, malpractice, and a large-scale "Pan-India Recruitment Scam" within Can Fin Homes Ltd., through whistleblower complaints dated 25.02.2025, 04.03.2025 (via email), 15.05.2025 and 01.08.2025, alleging undue influence and pressurizing by respondents No.6 to 9 who are officials of Canara Bank and also on the Board of Can Fin Homes Ltd., the statutory authorities have failed to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry; instead, the petitioner alleges that he was subjected to retaliatory actions such as transfer, suspension, and disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner asserts violation of his fundamental rights under 14 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as statutory protections, and seeks a writ of mandamus directing the competent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2, to conduct an independent enquiry with his participation.
10. At the outset, it is relevant to note the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. 1, that the test for maintainability under Article 226 is not the nature of the entity but the nature of the function, and where a public duty is involved, even a private body may fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction to that limited extent.
10.1. In the earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 18584 of 2025, the grievance of the petitioner was essentially employment-related and this Court, by order dated 26.09.2025, dismissed the same on the ground that Can Fin Homes Ltd. is not "State" under Article 12; however, in the present writ petition, the grievance is distinct, being directed against the inaction of statutory authorities, namely respondents No. 1 to 3, in failing to enquire into allegations/complaint against the officials of Canara Bank.
10.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondents No. 6 to 9, who are officials of Canara Bank and are also occupying positions on the Board/Management of Can Fin Homes, exerted undue influence on him, while he was serving as Assistant General Manager (HR), by forwarding profiles of unqualified candidates through communication channels such as WhatsApp and pressurizing him to recruit them, thereby compromising the recruitment process. This assertion, including the commonality of management between Canara Bank and Can Fin Homes, has not been effectively rebutted. In such circumstances, merely contending that Can Fin 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177 15 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J Homes is a private entity does not absolve the statutory authorities from examining allegations against public servants, particularly when respondent- Canara Bank is a nationalised bank and its officials fall within the ambit of public servants, whose acts--whether in discharge of official duty or by influencing for gains outside by misuse of official position--are amenable to judicial scrutiny. The respondents No. 1 to 3, therefore, cannot remain passive or decline to act merely on the ground that the allegations relate to a private entity, when there are specific allegations on officials of Canara Bank.
10.3. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that a public servant, whether during office hours, or private hours, should conduct himself with integrity and exemplary character; more so when associated with activities in private domains. The plea that the activities in private domain are separate or unconnected, cannot stand legal scrutiny as primarily the individuals are public servants in the first place, and the conduct expected of them should reflect in all spheres of their activities. In the instant case, the respondents No.6 to 9 are officials of Canara Bank, and they are simultaneously on the Board of Can Fin Homes Limited. In light of the said allegations, and the position held by the concerned officials, respondents No.6 to 9, the matter cannot be treated as merely confined to the internal affairs of a private companyCanFin Homes, but discloses a prima facie case warranting enquiry into complaint of the petitioner, by following due process.In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the complaint filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be permitted to 16 wp_30421_2025 NBK, J participate in the enquiry process and produce evidence, if any, with regard to the complaint/allegations, and afford him an opportunity of hearing.No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 10th April, 2026 ksm THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 30421 of 2025 10th April, 2026 ksm