Manoj Kumar v. The Union of India & Ors.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 2 than one crore rupees of a house at Lucknow including the cost of land at the built up area of the constructed house and for further consequential direction. From a perusal of the writ application it appears that apart from the allegation of disproportionate assets the petitioner has made various allegations against respondent No.6 including those relating to sexual misconduct. It is stated by the petitioner, who is appearing in person, that a large number of letters and reminders have been sent by him to the CBI and Commissioner of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for taking appropriate action but the same is not being taken. The petitioner submits that the CBI is the premier investigating agency in the country and it must be directed to look into the present matter in which according to him there is serious allegation of corruption against respondent No.6. Learned counsel for the CBI submits on the basis of the counter affidavit filed that the complaint dated 28.11.2011 made by the petitioner against respondent No.6 before the CBI does not contain any material fact by reading of the said complaint and the same was found devoid of merit and by order of the competent authority the same was closed. It is further Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 3 submitted that apart from the house at Lucknow belonging to respondent No.6 no other details regarding moveable or immoveable properties of respondent No.6 have been provided by the petitioner. It is also the stand of the CBI that the allegations of the petitioner are because of personal vendetta against respondent No.6 and are devoid of merit and the petitioner is trying to utilize the Government machinery for settling his personal score. It is also the specific stand that mere possession of a house worth Rs.63.51 lakhs does not amount to possession of disproportionate assets by respondent No.6 who happens to be a Class-1 Officer of Government of India. The said fact that respondent No.6 is a Class-1 Officer is disputed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the CBI further relies upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. : AIR 2010 SC 1476, in paragraph-46 of which it has been held as follows : “46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 4 the CBI of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of to conduct issuing a direction investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” instil confidence fundamental Learned counsel for the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti apart from adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the CBI, relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Samiti states that the petitioner has filed more than 40 cases in different forums and is a veteran litigant. It is also submitted that the petitioner is specially aggrieved by respondent No.6 because he being the Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office of the Samiti had to contest the court cases filed by the petitioner before different forums and vet/sign the written statement/counter Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 5 affidavits for which he is being taken to task by the petitioner. It is also submitted that respondent No.6 before his retirement on 31.3.2013 was getting a handsome take home salary of Rs.84,336/- per month and in his service period extended to 35 years it cannot be said that the assets possessed by him are disproportionate assets rather the same are well within his known sources of income. In this regard it is further submitted that apart from respondent No.6 his wife was also a teacher for some time and his sons are employed, one of whom is posted in South Africa. It is the further stand that apart from respondent No.6 the petitioner has made various allegations without any substance, evidence or relevance for the purpose of only harassing as many as nine Senior Officers of the Samiti. It is also submitted that the petitioner has committed a forgery by forging Government letter for which Bikram P.S.Case No. 101 of 2012 has been instituted against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has been taken on 17.5.2012. It is also the stand that the petitioner is aggrieved on account of dismissal of his various cases by the Central Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 6 Administrative Tribunal and in one case he had made allegations even against the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal for which he had been let off with a warning. It is submitted that the petitioner has also leveled false allegations against learned Advocates of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti including the son of the retainer counsel of Samiti in CAT, Patna Bench which was later on dropped by the Bihar State Bar Council. It is also the stand of the respondent Samiti that on combined charges a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner is avoiding his appearance, which fact is disputed by the petitioner by saying that the said proceeding has been stayed by Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it does appear that the petitioner has been fighting tooth and nail in order to ensure that some action is taken against respondent No.6 by making various allegations against him. However, so far as the question of possession of disproportionate assets by respondent No.6 is concerned, nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner to the CBI except the possession of a house at Lucknow, which according to the counter affidavits of the CBI Patna High Court CWJC No.16782 of 2012 (4) dt.22-08-2013 7 as also of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, appears to be unsupported by facts and properly explained by respondent No.6. Moreover, I am of the view that the present matter does not contain any national or international ramifications, rather an attempt by one individual to bring to book in criminal proceedings another individual. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights case (supra) and the caution given thereunder the present matter does not appear to be a case in which CBI should be directed to conduct any investigation. Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/-