ASHOK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed in public interest in or about March, 2012 seeks, (i) a direction to the respondent No.4 Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to proceed/resume investigating the matter under Complaint No.1605/09/6; (ii) a direction to the CVC to investigate ''in an effective manner with positive attitude '' the misdeeds of the respondent No.2 Sh. S. Roy Choudhury, Chairman & Managing Director (CMD) of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and all other officials of HPCL as detailed in the petition; (iii) a direction to the respondent authorities i.e. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG), Public Enterprises Selection Board and Department of Personnel & Training to cause investigation into the allegations made in the petition against the respondent No.2 and other officials of HPCL; and, (iv) a direction to the respondents to transfer the respondent No.2 pending investigation against him.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition, (a) that on a complaint dated 11th November, 2009 of one Sh. Rana Veer Singh, former Member of Parliament (MP), the respondent CVC had registered Complaint No.1605/09/6 against the then CMD and the Director (Marketing) and other officials of HPCL, of giving illegal credit to M/s. Kingfisher Airlines in gross violation of the rules and conduct of business; (b) that the respondent No.2 had availed complementary tickets for personal and family use from the said M/s. Kingfisher Airlines, thereby accruing gains to himself and causing loss to the exchequer; (c) that as per the policy of the respondent CVC, disciplinary action against the respondent No.2 should have been initiated by 28th February, 2010 and the respondent No.2 should have been debarred from being appointed as the CMD of HPCL and vigilance clearance could not have been given to him; (d) however the enquiry by the respondent CVC and the consequent report was being strategically delayed so that the respondent No.2 could complete his tenure as CMD of HPCL; (e) that the website of the respondent CVC as on 29th December, 2010 showed the status of the aforesaid complaint as ''being examined ''; strangely, on 26th July, 2011, the website showed the status as ''commission advised closure on 23rd July, 2010 ''; however response dated 21st July, 2011 to a ''Right to Information '' (RTI) query, again showed the complaint as ''still under investigation ''.

(3.) IN compliance of the above, an affidavit dated 28th May, 2012 was filed by the respondent CVC informing that allegation relating to availing free travel passes by the then CMD of HPCL was not prima facie substantiated and the CVC had decided to close the matter in respect of the then CMD; however with respect to the remaining allegations, the CVC had asked the MoPNG to furnish their comments on the report submitted by the CVO, HPCL to the effect that the directives of the Govt. had not been violated; though a report was received from the MoPNG but further queries were raised from the MoPNG and the response whereof was awaited and where -after the matter shall be examined further.