UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. S PAPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter the UPSC), appellant herein, conducted Indian Forest Service Examination for 1992. One of the centres for the examination was the Urdu-Hall sub-centre at Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 appeared as a candidate and took the examination from the said hall. On September 27, 1993 the UPSC sent to the Joint Director, CBI, a complaint alleging the use of unfair means at the examination by respondent No. 1 in collusion with the supervisor in-charge of the said centre-respondent No. 2. It was pointed out by the UPSC in the complaint that it had received a pseudonymous letter disclosing that answer sheets were written by the candidate-respondent No. 1 at a specified address in Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad, outside the examination hall. It was also stated that the UPSC had found certain factors suggesting a nexus between the candidate-respondent No. 1 and the supervisor in-charge, after an examination of answer books, answer sheets, attendance list, attendance sheet, sitting plan and certain other documents. It was then stated that respondent No. 1 appears to have adopted the same modus operandi on an earlier occasion too by appearing at the Urdu-Hall sub-centre instead of at the allotted centre for 1993 Civil Services (Preliminary) Exam. held on June 13, 1993. The UPSC requested the CBI to investigate the case on a priority basis and to intimate the results of the investigation to it. The CBI on receipt of the complaint registered it as complaint No. 17/14/93-C.IV and on October 19, 1993, a regular case was registered by the CBI on the basis of the aforesaid complaint being crime No. 3(S)/93-SIU.II against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offences under Ss. 120-B, 420, 381, 468 and 478, IPC. The investigation was entrusted to Shri T. N. Rao, S. P.

(3.) It transpires from the record that on September 12, 1994, the CBI filed a final report under S. 173, Cr. P.C. in the court of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, before whom the FIR had been lodged, seeking closure of the case. The CBI in spite of the request to it by the UPSC did not inform it about the filing of the final report seeking closure of the case. On December 5, 1994, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report because copy of the notice required to be issued to the complainant by the CBI had not been filed along with it, though on behalf of the CBI it was asserted that it had informed the UPSC regarding the filing of the closure report. On December 24, 1994, final report was resubmitted by the CBI to the Court of Vth Metropolitan Magistrate along with a copy of the notice sent by the CBI to the appellant-complainant. Once again, on December 31, 1994 the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report to the CBI, seeking proof of service of notice on the de facto complainant. In his order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate further directed the CBI that in the notice to be served upon the UPSC, it should be clearly indicated that the UPSC may file its objections to the final report. On January 6, 1995 the CBI, it appears, resubmitted the final report together with an acknowledgment of the receipt of notice from the UPSC dated December 19, 1994. In the notice, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the UPSC on December 19, 1994 and copy whereof was filed by the CBI in the Court on January 6, 1995, the CBI had not informed the UPSC that it could file objections to the final report as directed by the learned Magistrate. The CBI, for reasons best known to it, did not comply with the order of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate dated December 31, 1994. Neither a fresh notice was issued nor was the UPSC told that under orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate it could file its objections. The final report was once again returned by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate to the CBI on January 12, 1995, as the statements of the witnesses, copies of the documents including the reports of the hand- writing experts etc. had not been filed by the CBI along with the closure report. While matters rested thus, the UPSC addressed a letter to Shri K. Vijaya Rama Rao, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, on January 23, 1995 pointing out that CBI had informed it (vide its letter dated December 14, 1994) that it had decided to close the case under S. 173, Cr. P.C. and that the closure report had been filed in the court. The UPSC pointed out that the investigation had not been carried out properly and the filing of the closure report was, therefore, not justified. The UPSC asserted that there was need for reinvestigation because some of the vital points raised in its complaint had not been touched at all by the investigating officer during the investigation. As many as six such points were brought to the notice of the Director, CBI. It was requested that the case be reinvestigated by the CBI at some "higher level". This communication was in the nature of a "protest petition" to the CBI in response to the notice from the CBI to the UPSC dated December 14, 1995 informing it that the CBI had filed a closure report of the case before the learned Magistrate. While the UPSC was awaiting further communication from the CBI in that behalf, the CBI it appears resubmitted the closure report on February 24, 1995. On March 16, 1995, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, accepted the final report submitted by the CBI and closed the file without any opportunity being provided to the UPSC to have its say.