COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

2.1 With respect to the appointment of respondent No.3, that since it was alleged that on the administrative side, he was severely indicted for fabricating/forging the APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, General Manager and was cautioned. However, his criminal prosecution ultimately was not fructified. Thus, in view COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 907 of the order passed in the serious background, it could not be said that person who was accused of fabricating/forging APAR was a person of impeccable integrity fit to hold the office of Vigilance Commissioner of an integrity institution of this country. Respondent No. 3 in his written explanation pointed out that in the past there were 14 such cases when succeeding CMDs, had submitted APAR when reviewing APAR when officers have not worked under him. Thus no action against him was warranted. He had not violated any guidelines. [Paras 105, 109][955-D-E; 956-F-G]

2.2 So far as fabrication and forgery are concerned, no finding has been recorded against respondent No.3 with respect to the APAR for 2009-2010 by any formal order on the administrative side. Thus, his integrity is not going to be affected in the aforesaid factual matrix. [Para 111][958-B]

2.3 There is no finding recorded against respondent No.3 either by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner or the DFS in any manner whatsoever so as to impinge adversely upon his integrity, necessary for such an institution of Vigilance Commission. Apart from that, no representation was filed against respondent No.3. However, this aspect was dealt with and was mentioned in the report which was submitted before the HPC. Thus, there was nothing against the integrity of respondent No.3 so as to hold that the recommendation with respect to him was illegal and void and entire material was placed before the HPC. Thus, no case is made out with respect to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Vigilance Commissioner to make interference in judicial parameters. [Paras 111, 112][958-C-D, F]

#3. Judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the decision making process by the HPC. The difference between judicial and merit review, the legality of decision-making process can also be looked into. If the decision is influenced by extraneous considerations or selection is made in breach of the statute or rules, it can be set aside. The Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions. [Para 85][950-F, G] A B C D E F G H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

#4. It is not for this Court to decide on the choice. Nowadays the scenario is that such complaints cannot be taken on face value. Even against very honest persons, allegations can be made. Those days have gone when filing of the complaints was taken as serious aspersions on integrity. Ideally, there should not be any serious complaint as the filing of same raises eyebrows. As in the instant matter, complaints have been looked into and the Court declines to interfere. [Para 113][958-G-H]