Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that the Court cannot lose track of the fact that respondent no.1 was eligible and not that his selection was in disregard of the relevant Recruitment Rules. It is further contended that this Court also cannot ignore that respondent no.1 has worked in the present Department for almost eight years in the field of intelligence, investigation and adjudication or prosecution relating to fiscal or criminal law and has been working in the DZO investigating important cases like 2G Spectrum scam, CWG scam, EMMAR MGF case, IREO case, etc., out of which 2G Spectrum investigation was being monitored by the Supreme Court of India on day-to-day basis.

29. The respondent no.1 has an experience of more than six years in the field of intelligence, investigation work and adjudication or prosecution relating to fiscal or criminal law and experience of more than five years of the post on which his selection is recommended by the UPSC. It is worthwhile to point out that while forwarding the application of respondent no.1 for absorption to the post, the Directorate of Enforcement had highlighted that there were only two Assistant Directors working in the DZO against the sanctioned post of three and respondent no.1 herein was working in the DZO investigation the important cases like 2G Spectrum scam, CWG scam, EMMAR MGF case, IREO case, out of which the 2G Spectrum scam investigation was being monitored by the Supreme Court of India on day to day basis. The said communication also highlighted that absorption of respondent no.1 would give much needed continuity to the investigation being done in the DZO and his application for absorption should be considered favourably. We deem it appropriate to produce letters dated 25.07.2011 and 13.10.2011, which are as under:

At present there are only two Asstt. Directors working in DZO against the sanctioned strength of three. Shri Rajeshwar Singh is investigating some of the important cases being investigated in the DZO like the case of 2G Spectrum scam, CWG scam, EMMAR MGF case, IREO case. The HO is aware that the 2G spectrum scam investigation is being monitored by the Supreme Court on day to day basis. Because of this reason the deputation of Rajeshwar Singh was extended by the competent authority upto 21/4/2012.

This issue with the approval of Director, Directorate of Enforcement."

30. In view of the aforesaid two letters, the petitioner cannot take a contrary stand that it had decided not to fill up the vacancies of Deputy Director of Enforcement.

31. Additionally, we may add that respondent no.1 has been working in the present Department for eight years in the field of intelligence, investigation and adjudication or prosecution relating to fiscal or criminal law and has been investigating in the DZO important cases like 2G Spectrum scam, CWG scam, EMMAR MGF case, IREO case, out of which 2G Spectrum investigation was being monitored by the Supreme Court of India on day- to-day basis. Copies of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India dated 01.05.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10660/2010 and the order passed on 08.09.2014 have been reproduced in paragraphs 16 and 17 aforegoing and attention of this Court has been drawn by Mr. Harish Salve to the observations so made in the orders dated 01.05.2014 and 08.09.2014 wherein in the order dated 01.05.2014, it was brought to the notice of Supreme Court of India by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel who was appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation that one Shri Vivek Priyardarshi is the Supervisory Officer for Central Bureau of Investigation and Dr. Rajeshwar Singh is the Investigating Officer for the Enforcement Directorate, who are conducting the investigation of Aircel Maxis case but the Supreme Court had then observed that Dr. Rajeshwar Singh, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate shall continue with investigation along with two other Investigating Officers till the completion of the trial. It was also brought to the notice of the Supreme Court of India on 08.09.2014 that an order had been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.3653/2013 by Dr. Rajeshwar Singh which was allowed and a writ petition filed by the Union of India and in the writ petition filed by the Union of India this Court had declined the interim relief to the Union of India. The Supreme Court had then observed "The respondent(s) - Union of India shall comply with the order and directions issued by the Tribunal within three days' time from today".