S.C. Gupta v. Central Vigilance Commisioner

7/30/2019 S.C. Gupta v. Central Vigilance Commisioner

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sc-gupta-v-central-vigilance-commisioner 1/3

MANU/DE/0752/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CWP No. 1590 of 2000 & C.M. 2655 of 2000

Decided On: 03.08.2001

Appellants: Sh. S.C. Gupta

Vs.

Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission & ors.

Hon'ble Judge:

Mr. Vikramajit Sen, J.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ms. Shobha, Adv.

For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. V.N. Koura, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Abhinav Vashist, Adv.

Subject: Service

Catch Words:

Employee, Employer, Enquiry, Transfer

Acts/Rules/Orders:

Constitution of India - Article 226

Case Referred:

Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1998 SC 889

Disposition

Petition dismissed

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The prayers in this writ petition are essentially of two natures. Firstly, for the holdingof an enquiry into the complaints lodged by the Petitioner. Secondly, it has been prayedthat a high level independent committee should be appointed to go into the working of

the Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1998 SC

889 . Predicated on this decision it has been prayed that a continuing mandamus be

http://fncitation%28%27manu/DE/0752/2001');

http://fncitation%28%27manu/DE/0752/2001');



issued, that is, while the petition is kept pending, the Central Vigilance Commission

and/or any other Authority may be ordered to complete its investigations and submit its

report. In Vineet Narain's case(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that theCentral Bureau of Investigation had been insert and inactive in matters where the

accusation made was against high dignitaries. Because of the reluctance of the C.B.I. to

carry out investigations against very high ranking accused the Hon'ble Supreme Courthad considered it fit to initiate and implement the 'continuing mandamus'.

3. In the case at hand the Petitioner is an officer of the Indian Oil Corporation. If petitions

such as this are entertained, the direct effect would be that an employee would, under the

cover of jural intervention, be able to blackmail and pressurise his employers. Learnedcounsel appearing for the Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation had submitted that the

reason for the filing of the present petition was not the alleged illegal goings-on in the

Respondent-Corporation but with the specific intention of pressurising the Respondent-Corporation and recalling the transfer orders of the Petitioners. I do not intend to go into

this issue. After granting a number of hearings to the Petitioners I have been unable to

appreciate the existence of any ground similar to that which had prevailed upon theHon'ble Supreme Court to issue the mandamus in Vineet Narain's case (supra). It has

been unequivocally stated that every complaint filed by the Petitioner has been duly

forwarded to and considered by the Chief Vigilance Commission. Furthermore, the

allegations have also been investigated by the Vigilance Department of the Indian OilCorporation. The Indian Oil Corporation had conducted enquires against some of its

senior Officers and even found them guilty. This fact has been acknowledged by the

Petitioner himself. There is no reason to suspect or doubt that the Chairman and theBoard of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation would be reluctant to investigate into

any complaints of corruption within the ranks of their Managers. This is in fact the

distinguishing feature between the present case and that of Vineet Narain's case (supra).

Had the Petitioner's accusations being directed and levelled against the highest echelonsof the Management of Indian Oil Corporation, there may have been some warrant or

justification for this Court to look deeper into the allegations. There is a thin line, but a

discernable one, between the Court ordering an investigation into complaints of corruption in a Public Corporation or Authority, and itself wearing the mantle of the

investigator. Since action is being taken by the Central Vigilance Commission as the

Respondent-Corporation, a direction by this Court would be inappropriate. The latter roleis to be reserved in those extraordinary and exceptional cases such as existed in Vineet

Narain's case (supra). The Court has an extremely restricted part to play in the

superintendence of Authorities and especially Corporations and Companies. Itsinterference may be called for where a right of the Petitioner has been violated. No

infraction of any kind is made out as would justify the grant of the prayers contained in

the petition. If the Petitioner's grievances partake of public interest litigation he shouldnot be ensure that he is impregnable to any accusation of personal interests or motive;

this would be difficult where the Petitioner is an employee and the accusations are

directed and hurled at the employer. Since I am unable to persuade myself to accept that

either the Chief Vigilance Commission or the Indian Oil Corporation have not dulyinvestigated or are investigating the numerous complaints made on behalf of Petitioner, I



see no reason to exercise the extraordinary powers vested in the Court under Article 226

of the Constitution.

4. The petition is dismissed.

Documents

S.C. Gupta v. Central Vigilance Commisioner