SC GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 inert and inactive in matters where the accusation made was against high dignitaries. Because of the reluctance of 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 Respondent-Corporation and recalling the transfer orders of the Petitioner. I do not intend to go into this issue. After granting a number of hearings to the Petitioner 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.