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 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 Employee, Employer, Enquiry, Transfer Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Article 226 Case 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 holding of an enquiry into the complaints lodged by the Petitioner. Secondly, it has been prayed that 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 Referred: Words: Judge:

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 the Central 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 Court had 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. Learned counsel 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 RespondentCorporation 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 the Hon'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 Oil Corporation. 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 the Board 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 echelons of 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 role is 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. Its interference 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 should not 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 duly investigated 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.