PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 5 from proceeding further with conducting inquiry or investigating offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in connection with the case registered in FIR Rc.No.13(E)/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai, pending on the file of the 5th respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner having been appointed by the Central Government, who is a member of the IPS cadre, even though is serving in the Tamil Nadu Police as per Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, it is mandatory to get prior permission to initiate any investigation against the petitioner, as he is drawing more than the salary of the Joint Secretary to the Government. The appointing authority of the petitioner being the Central Government, even though certain powers of imposition of minor punishments are delegated to the State Government for the day to day operational/functional requirements, the official word is vested only with the Central Government, which means the orders passed by the State Government require ratification. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that merely because the CBI has taken over the investigation pursuant to the orders of this Court, they cannot violate the mandatory statutory provision. The Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 (State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights) is in respect of transfer of investigation alone and not in respect of prior approval of the Central Government for initiation of the investigation against a particular officer. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226 and argued that in the said judgment the Supreme Court has directed the CBI to scrupulously follow the provisions of the CBI Manual for raids, seizure and arrest and further held that deviation of the procedures should be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action would be taken against the officials concerned. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that when this Court passed orders in Crl.O.P. transferring the investigation to CBI on 19.4.2011, the petitioner was not made as accused in the case. As section 6A of the Act having been violated by not getting prior approval of the Central Government, the entire investigation made by the CBI against the petitioner should be set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on certain decisions in support of his submissions.