S. Kannan v. The Govt. of India Ministry of Railways

R6 impleaded suomotu as per order dated 28-07-2009 by PSDJ & CTSJin W.P.No.22071 of 2008Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent toregister a case against 5th respondent under Prevention ofCorruption Act and for other offences without getting previousapproval as contemplated under Section 6A of the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act, 1946.For Petitioner :: Mr. M. ChristopherFor respondents :: Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for RR1 & 2 Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Spl.P.P. for RR3 & 4 Mr. K. Ramasamy, AAG for Ms.N. Kavitha for R5 Mr. M. Ravindran, Addl.Solicitor General for Mr. Vijayaraghavan for R6ORDER(PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J.)This public interest litigation is filed on behalf of theDemocratic Youth Federation of India alleging irregularity in theappointment of Substitutes by the fifth respondent, flouting allguidelines and recruitment norms. 2.According to the petitioner, the fifth respondentwho retired on 17-07-2007 had made more than 80 appointmentswithout complying with the guidelines issued by the Ministry ofRailways in the Master Circular dated 27-01-1991 which wassubsequently revised on 04-01-2001 which provided for someprocedure to be followed in engaging Substitutes. It appears thatthe petitioner made a complaint to the fourth respondent on 24-07-2007. The sixth respondent was impleaded suo motu on 14-08-2009.The sixth respondent forwarded the complaint to the Vigilance Cellof Southern Railways. Since there was no progress on thecomplaint, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34814 of 2000. When thewrit petition came up for hearing the first respondent submittedthat all the files were handed over to the third respondent forenquiry and based on this the writ petition was closed. Thereafter,an application was filed under the Right to Information Act on 15-05-2008 regarding the stage of investigation. The fourthrespondent replied to his application stating that a prima faciecase was made out to register a case under the provision ofPrevention of Corruption Act and the previous approval of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Government under Section 6A of the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment Act, 1946 as amended by the Central VigilanceCommission Act, 2003 was sought for. Since the Railway Board, thesecond respondent herein had not granted approval they could notregister a regular case. When W.P.No.34814 of 2007 came up forhearing on 12-03-2008, the first respondent did not disclose allthe materials for reasons best known to them. Thereafter, anotherapplication was filed by the petitioner on 25-08-2008 to the secondrespondent under the Right to Information Act to furnish thegrounds for rejection of previous approval. Till date, the secondrespondent has not furnished the information. In thesecircumstances, the writ petition was filed for a direction to thefourth respondent to register a case against the fifth respondentwithout getting previous approval. 3.When the matter came up for hearing we wereinformed that on 05-02-2009, the sixth respondent had decided todrop the matter and to withdraw the approval earlier granted andthis was intimated by Office Memorandum dated 05-02-2009.Therefore, it was submitted that nothing further needed to be donein this writ petition. 4.Since we found that the communication dated 05-02-2009 from the sixth respondent was contrary to their own earlierstand, we suo motu impleaded the sixth respondent by order dated14-08-2009 so that the sixth respondent could place all thematerials on record. 5.We have heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned SeniorCounsel for RR1 & 2 Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, learned Special PublicProsecutor for RR3 & 4, Mr. K. Ramasamy, learned AdditionalAdvocate General for R5, Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Addl. SolicitorGeneral for R6 and Mr. M. Christopher, learned counsel for thepetitioner. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat when there was enough material to justify a criminalinvestigation the dropping of the case by the sixth respondent iscontrary to the principles based on which the Supreme Court in 1998(1) Crimes 12 (SC) (Vineet Narain & Others Vs. Union of India &Another) brought the sixth respondent into existence. He alsoreferred to the relevant paragraphs. He further submitted thatthere were enough materials to prima facie indicate R5'smisconduct. Mr. M. Christopher, learned counsel submitted thatsince the fifth respondent has retired, the question of sanctionfor prosecution does not arise and the direction must be issued. 7.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the firstand the second respondent submitted that the Railways is anInstitution which works 24 hours a day, the movement of goods andpassengers cannot stop for even one hour. There may be situationswhen 10 gang men may absent themselves and if the Officers have towait for a Committee to properly recruit the substitutes, theentire working of the Railways will come to a standstill. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, that the Indian Railways has for a long time adopted thepractice of engaging substitutes to tide over such emergencies andmoments of crisis. The learned Senior counsel submitted that forregular recruitment through the Railways Recruitment Cell, the timeconsumed is one to one and a half years for finalising the panelafter processing the applications of lakhs of candidates.Therefore, the Railways divided the appointees into two categories,one, the Regular appointee from the Railway Recruitment Cell andthe other, substitutes engaged by the General Manager. Accordingto the learned Senior Counsel, it cannot be said that the fifthrespondent has used unfettered discretion and it is not as if he isthe only officer to engage substitutes in this manner. This is thepractice adopted by the General Manager of all the zones and sincesuch discretionary powers are being exercised by the GeneralManagers, the Railway Board advised the fourth respondent that theaction of the fifth respondent was in accordance with the acceptedpractice and in exercise of the powers given to him as a GeneralManager and therefore, registering a case against him for anadministratively approved system, would be inappropriate and that,therefore, the Board had declined sanction for prosecution, afterconsidering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Itappears that modified guidelines have been issued, after CentralVigilance Commission was seized of the matter and had advised thatas a measure of social audit and in the interest of transparency,the usual method of ad hoc appointment is discontinued. 8.In the counter filed by the respondents 3 and 4, itis stated that a preliminary verification revealed that there wasjustification to take up investigation against fifth respondent,who is an Officer at the level of Joint Secretary to Government ofIndia and therefore, approval was required for registration of aregular case. According to them, the submissions made inW.P.No.34814 of 2007 that all the files were handed over, were madein the absence of the respondents 3 and 4 and it is specificallydenied that this submission was not correct and further, inParagraph No.5 of the first affidavit it is stated that the fifthrespondent after relinquishing his post as General Manager,Southern Railways, has been appointed as a Member, Railway RatesTribunal, Chennai and continues to hold that post and therefore,approval of Central Government is mandatory to register a case. Ina further affidavit filed by the respondents 3 and 4, it is averredthat in July 2007, they received information that in the SouthernRailways there was grievous irregularity in the matter ofappointment of substitutes and there were allegation of even moneychanging hands and the Circular dated 29-01-1991 also shows thebreach by the Railways themselves. The scrutiny of the limitedfiles handed over to them showed that in the period about one monthearlier to demitting the office, the fifth respondent had received90 applications and that they were personally approved by himwithout asking for any details like non-availability of leavereserve, non-availability of the panel or vacancy position andthere was no attempt made to satisfy himself whether there was anyneed for appointment of such persons as substituted Khalasis andit is also stated that on the last date of leaving office, 14 cases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were approved by him. According to the CBI, there was deliberatecontravention of the Circular in the matter of discretionaryappointment of the substitutes and blatant abuse of power andtherefore, they have sought previous approval of registering aregular case and on the decline of prior approval, the respondents3 and 4 referred to the matter to the sixth respondent on 07-05-2008. On 30-06-2008, the sixth respondent had communicated torespondents 3 and 4 that merely because an Officer has the power todo certain acts, the sanction for registration of the case cannotbe denied and by the same letter, the sixth respondent alsoindicated that they were prima facie satisfied that the fifthrespondent has abused his powers to favour certain persons.Thereafter, since the respondents 3 and 4 did not receive anyfurther communication from the second respondent, nothing furtherwas done. 9.The fifth respondent has filed his counter statingthat the writ petition has been filed only to tarnish his image.He had an unblemished record of service and it is unfortunate thatsuch allegations are made against him after his retirement.According to him, there was no extraneous consideration for makingthe appointments and these appointments were made only in order tomeet the minimum requirements and only to ensure smooth functioningof the establishment to suit the exigency of the situation. Thelearned Senior Counsel also submitted that he is absolutelyblameless. 10.The sixth respondent has filed its counterreferring to a letter dated 13-03-2008 addressed by the third andfourth respondents to the second respondent, copy marked to thesixth respondent. Based on the information contained therein, theoriginal opinion of the sixth respondent was that the secondrespondent's rejection of the request of sanction needed to be re-examined. Thereafter, the sixth respondent appears to have heldthe meeting with the Chairman, Railway Board and other high levelofficials to discuss the system of appointment of substitutes andwhile the sixth respondent conceded that there was failure of thesystem, it would state that one individual cannot be heldresponsible for the same and it is therefore, they decided that thematter relating to grant of approval be dropped and the same wascommunicated to the second respondent by office memorandum dated05-02-2009. According to the sixth respondent, it has notcommitted any illegality or irregularity and the files have alsobeen produced before us. 11.The files of the sixth respondent shows that thoughthe proposal for consideration relating to the irregularitiesalleged to have been committed by the fifth respondent was placedbefore them, the fourth respondent had expressed that thediscretionary appointment of substitutes was in contravention ofthe repeated Circulars of Railway Board for the merit basedcompetent recruitment. The CBI requested the Railway Board for thedetails of the system adopted by the General Managers in theappointment of Khalasis in the interest of probity. Originally, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the sixth respondent was of the view that the consent forregistration of a case cannot be denied merely on the ground thatthe suspected officer had the powers to do certain acts like theappointment of private individuals as Railway Employees withoutgoing through the process of selection by abuse of powers as aGeneral Manager.12.This was the original stand of the sixthrespondent. But, later, the stand appears to have been mellowedsince the sixth respondent preferred that an approach should bemade finding out the reason for not engaging the substitutes on amerit basis and for improving the system as a whole rather thanchasing the individual officer against whom we have no personalopinion though we are unable to accept the wrong action. It appearsthat the Railway Authorities themselves admitted that dependingonly upon the exigencies of administrative circumstances andnecessities, the General Managers of various Zonal Railways wereengaging substitutes and had also admitted before the sixthrespondent that "Railways had not taken any initiative to reviewthe instructions/ order on the appointment of Substitutes for thepast three years". It appears that only after the presentproceedings when there was allegations of misfeasance/malfeasance,the Board had woken up and had appointed a Committee to review theguidelines. Therefore, the sixth respondent decided that the entiremanner in which the discretionary appointments are made are notregular and not in conformity with the principles settled by theSupreme Court in Umarani (2004 (7) SCC 112) and Umadevi's case(2006 (4) SCC 1) and therefore, the existing system should be re-examined with the help of the situations given by the SupremeCourt. Finally, they appear to have agreed with the Railway Boardthat further proceedings was not necessary and decided to drop thecase. 13.The learned Additional Solicitor General alsosubmitted that when the same practice had been followed by theGeneral Managers' Panel all over India, the sixth respondent feltthat it was not necessary to proceed against one Officer. 14.The files of the CBI have also been brought.There, we find that from the scrutiny of the records that CBI wasof the opinion that there was blatant abuse of the officialposition by the fifth respondent and therefore, it definitelyamounted to misconduct. Communications have been periodically senton 12-09-2007, 26-11-2007 and 13-03-2008 to the Chairman, RailwayBoard. Copies have been marked to the sixth respondent also. Inview of the stand of the Railway Board as well as the refusal togrant sanction, the CBI could not proceed in the matter after thestage of preliminary investigation. 15.The Circular of the Railway Board dated 29-01-1991reads as follows:GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF RAILWAYS(RAILWAY BOARD) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RB No.12/91M.C.No.20/91No.E(NG)II/90/SB/Master CircularNew Delhidt.29.1.91The General ManagersAll Indian Railways,Production Units & Others.Sub: Substitutes."Instructions on the subject "Substitutes" arecontained in Chapter 23-A(ii) of IREM 1968 and also invarious letters and circulars issued from time to timefrom Railway Board. The question of issue of aconsolidated instructions has been engaging the attentionof the Railway Board for quite some time. It has nowbeen decided by them to issue a consolidated instructionsis the form of a Master Circular on the subject"Substitutes" as below for the information and guidanceof all concerned.2.Definition:"Substitutes" refer to persons engaged in IndianRailway Establishments on regular scales of pay andallowances applicable to posts falling vacant because ofabsence on leave or otherwise of permanent or temporaryRailway Servant and which cannot be kept vacant.(No.E(NG)65/LR 1/1dated 1.9.65)3.Circumstances under which "Substitutes" can beappointed:Ordinarily, there should be no occasion to engage"Substitutes" having regard to the fact that practicallyin all categories of Railway Servants leave reserve hasbeen provided for. Occasions may, however, arise whenowing to an abnormally high rate of absentees, the leavereserve may become inadequate or ineffective, e.g., heavysickness etc. or where leave reserve is available but itis not possible to provide the same, say, at a waysidestation. On such occasions, it may become absolutelynecessary to engage substitutes even in vacancies ofshort duration as otherwise the Railway service may beadversely affected.3.1 Substitutes should, as far as possible,be drawn from a panel of suitable candidates selected forGroup 'C' (Class III) and Group 'D' (Class IV) posts andshould be engaged upto the age of 28 years only, subjectto the observations made above, only in the followingcircumstances:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) Against regular vacancies of unskilled andother categories of Group 'C' (Class IV) staff requiringreplacement for which arrangements cannot be made withinthe existing leave reserve; ii) Against a chain vacancy in the lowercategory of Group 'D' (Class IV) staff arising out of theincumbent in a higher Group 'C' (Class IV) category beingon leave, where it is not possible to fill the post fromwithin the existing leave reserve and when otherwise theRailway service will be affected;iii) Appointment of substitute school teachers onad hoc basis on the Railways should normally be avoidedand where it becomes inescapable, it should be for shortperiods and that too with the personal and prior approvalof the General Managers.Adequate panel has to be maintained to fillregular vacancies of teachers and adequate waiting listfor appointing substitute teachers therefrom so that thetail and of the panel can be treated as a waiting listfor the purpose. Therefore, there should be no separatepanel (waiting list) for substitute teachers. In caseswhere due to any compelling reasons a waiting list is notavailable or the wait listed candidate is not forthcomingand the post cannot be left unfilled till a regularincumbent is available, the post may be temporarilymanned by recruiting a substitute, who should be selectedthrough a procedure of calling of applications locallyand making a selection from out of these applications.Such an arrangement should be extended beyond six monthswithin which time a regular panel for appointingsubstitute teachers should be formed;iv) Substitutes in the lowest grade may beengaged to fill vacancies arising on account of theRailway Territorial Army Unit Personnel called up by theArmy for training or for military duty in emergency of 30days duration or more.v) Against vacancies in other circumstancesspecified by the Railway Board from time to time.NOTE: (1) The Phrase "as far as possible" occurring atthe beginning of this para is not intended to conferunfettered discretion to appoint substitutes fromoutside. Substitutes should be appointed only from thepanel. However, in special circumstances persons not inpanel may be appointed but this should be for a veryshort period and only in urgent cases.[2] Persons proposed to be appointed assubstitutes are to be clearly warned that theirappointment is only as substitutes and services will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ terminated immediately on return of the persons on leaveor regular selected candidates become available."It is clear from this that it is not intended to give the GeneralManager's "unfettered discretion". We also have to extract thetabular column regarding the break-up of engagement of fresh facesubstitutes on Indian Railways:Annexure-II to Board's letter No. E(NG)-II/2007/RR-1/63dated.1.2009BREAK-UP OF ENGAGEMENT OF FRESH FACE SUBSTITUTES ON INDIAN RAILWAYSRailways / PUs2007-20082008-2009FreshFace Act.App.Others(CG,Blast,Accident, LandLosersetc.FreshFace Act.App.Others(CG,Blast,Accident, LandLosersetc.Northern 3260026200Central10131-150002Eastern1470011600North Eastern 1680010500Southern 274440256050South Central860324506South Eastern241008700NortheastFrontier61005100Western740281210105East Central2390014600East Coast174007900North Central1540013900North Western 105008000South Western 86004300West Central81470100410South EastCentral47004900GRAND TOTAL211752261149864611316.As regards the guidelines for appointment, it isclear that the fifth respondent is quite conscious of what shouldbe done, since even the files have referred to the judgments of theSupreme Court. The Circulars have been given in 1991, 2001 and nowin 2009. Therefore, it is not as if the guidelines to be followedin the recruitment of Substitutes were not before the Officers.The excuse is that other zonal managers also do the same. It is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ excuse that the ill behoves a Senior Officer. The aberration of acolleague cannot justify his own aberration.17.In this context, we have to remember how the CVCcame into existence and we only extract the following paragraphsfrom the Vineeth Narain case:"56. The adverse impact of lack of probity inpublic life leading to a high degree of corruption ismanifold. It also has adverse effect on foreigninvestment and funding from the International MonetaryFund and the World Bank who have warned that future aidto underdeveloped countries may be subject to therequisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption,which prevents international aid from reaching those forwhom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led toinvestigative journalism which is of value to a freesociety. The need to highlight corruption in public lifethrough the medium of public interest litigation invokingjudicial review may be frequent in India but is notunknown in other countries.57. Of course, the necessity of desirableprocedures evolved by court rules to ensure that such alitigation is properly conducted and confined only tomatters of public interest is obvious. This is the effortmade in these proceedings for the enforcement offundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution inexercise of powers conferred on this Court for doingcomplete justice in a cause. It cannot be doubted thatthere is a serious human rights aspect involved in such aproceeding because the prevailing corruption in publiclife, if permitted to continue unchecked, has ultimatelythe deleterious effect of eroding the Indian polity.58. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, wehereby direct as under:I. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND CENTRALVIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC)1. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) shall be givenstatutory status.2. Selection for the post of Central VigilanceCommissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising thePrime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of theOpposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants andothers with impeccable integrity, to be furnished by theCabinet Secretary. The appointment shall be made by thePresident on the basis of the recommendations made by theCommittee. This shall be done immediately. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The CVC shall be responsible for the efficientfunctioning of the CBI. While Government shall remainanswerable for the CBI’s functioning, to introducevisible objectivity in the mechanism to be establishedfor overviewing the CBI’s working, the CVC shall beentrusted with the responsibility of superintendence overthe CBI’s functioning. The CBI shall report to the CVCabout cases taken up by it for investigation; progress ofinvestigations; cases in which charge-sheets are filedand their progress. The CVC shall review the progress ofall cases moved by the CBI for sanction of prosecution ofpublic servants which are pending with the competentauthorities, specially those in which sanction has beendelayed or refused.4. The Central Government shall take all measuresnecessary to ensure that the CBI functions effectivelyand efficiently and is viewed as a non-partisan agency.5. The CVC shall have a separate section in its AnnualReport on the CBI’s functioning after the supervisoryfunction is transferred to it.6. Recommendations for appointment of the Director, CBIshall be made by a Committee headed by the CentralVigilance Commissioner with the Home Secretary andSecretary (Personnel) as members. The views of theincumbent Director shall be considered by the Committeefor making the best choice. The Committee shall draw up apanel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority,integrity, experience in investigation and anti-corruption work. The final selection shall be made by theAppointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) from thepanel recommended by the Selection Committee. If noneamong the panel is found suitable, the reasons thereofshall be recorded and the Committee asked to draw up afresh panel.7. The Director, CBI shall have a minimum tenure of twoyears, regardless of the date of his superannuation. Thiswould ensure that an officer suitable in all respects isnot ignored merely because he has less than two years tosuperannuate from the date of his appointment.8. The transfer of an incumbent Director, CBI in anextraordinary situation, including the need for him totake up a more important assignment, should have theapproval of the Selection Committee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The Director, CBI shall have full freedom forallocation of work within the agency as also forconstituting teams for investigations. Any change made bythe Director, CBI in the Head of an investigative teamshould be for cogent reasons and for improvement ininvestigation, the reasons being recorded.10. Selection/extension of tenure of officers up to thelevel of Joint Director (JD) shall be decided by a Boardcomprising the Central Vigilance Commissioner, HomeSecretary and Secretary (Personnel) with the Director,CBI providing the necessary inputs. The extension oftenure or premature repatriation of officers up to thelevel of Joint Director shall be with final approval ofthis Board. Only cases pertaining to the appointment orextension of tenure of officers of the rank of JointDirector or above shall be referred to the AppointmentsCommittee of the Cabinet (ACC) for decision.11. Proposals for improvement of infrastructure, methodsof investigation, etc. should be decided urgently. Inorder to strengthen CBI’s in-house expertise,professionals from the Revenue, Banking and Securitysectors should be inducted into the CBI.12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of theCr.P.C provides essential guidelines for the CBI’sfunctioning. It is imperative that the CBI adheresscrupulously to the provisions in the Manual in relationto its investigative functions, like raids, seizure andarrests. Any deviation from the established procedureshould be viewed seriously and severe disciplinary actiontaken against the officials concerned.13. The Director, CBI shall be responsible for ensuringthe filing of charge-sheets in courts within thestipulated time-limits, and the matter should be keptunder constant review by the Director, CBI.14. A document on CBI’s functioning should be publishedwithin three months to provide the general public with afeedback on investigations and information for redress ofgenuine grievances in a manner which does not compromisewith the operational requirements of the CBI.15. Time-limit of three months for grant of sanction forprosecution must be strictly adhered to. However,additional time of one month may be allowed where https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG)or any other law officer in the AG’s office.16. The Director, CBI should conduct regular appraisal ofpersonnel to prevent corruption and/or inefficiency inthe agency.II. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE1. A Selection Committee headed by the Central VigilanceCommissioner and including the Home Secretary, Secretary(Personnel) and Revenue Secretary, shall prepare a panelfor appointment of the Director, Enforcement Directorate.The appointment to the post of Director shall be made bythe Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) from thepanel recommended by the Selection Committee.2. The Director, Enforcement Directorate like theDirector, CBI shall have a minimum tenure of two years.In his case also, premature transfer for anyextraordinary reason should be approved by the aforesaidSelection Committee headed by the Central VigilanceCommissioner.3. In view of the importance of the post of Director,Enforcement Directorate, it shall be upgraded to that ofan Additional Secretary/Special Secretary to theGovernment.4. Officers of the Enforcement Directorate handlingsensitive assignments shall be provided adequate securityto enable them to discharge their functions fearlessly.5. Extensions of tenure up to the level of Joint Directorin the Enforcement Directorate should be decided by thesaid Committee headed by the Central VigilanceCommissioner.6. There shall be no premature media publicity by theCBI/Enforcement Directorate.7. Adjudication/commencement of prosecution shall be madeby the Enforcement Directorate within a period of oneyear. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The Director, Enforcement Directorate shall monitorand ensure speedy completion ofinvestigations/adjudications and launching ofprosecutions. Revenue Secretary must review theirprogress regularly.9. For speedy conduct of investigations abroad, theprocedure to approve filing of applications for LettersRogatory shall be streamlined and, if necessary, RevenueSecretary authorised to grant the approval.10. A comprehensive circular shall be published by theDirectorate to inform the public about theprocedures/systems of its functioning for the sake oftransparency.11. In-house legal advice mechanism shall be strengthenedby appointment of competent legal advisers in theCBI/Directorate of Enforcement.12. The Annual Report of the Department of Revenue shallcontain a detailed account on the working of theEnforcement Directorate.III. NODAL AGENCY1. A Nodal Agency headed by the Home Secretary withMember (Investigation), Central Board of Direct Taxes,Director General, Revenue Intelligence, Director,Enforcement and Director, CBI as members, shall beconstituted for co-ordinated action in cases havingpolitico-bureaucrat-criminal nexus.2. The Nodal Agency shall meet at least once every month.3. Working and efficacy of the Nodal Agency should bewatched for about one year so as to improve it upon thebasis of the experience gained within this period.IV. PROSECUTION AGENCY1. A panel of competent lawyers of experience andimpeccable reputation shall be prepared with the adviceof the Attorney General. Their services shall be utilisedas prosecuting counsel in cases of significance. Evenduring the course of investigation of an offence, theadvice of a lawyer chosen from the panel should be takenby the CBI/Enforcement Directorate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Every prosecution which results in the discharge oracquittal of the accused must be reviewed by a lawyer onthe panel and, on the basis of the opinion given,responsibility should be fixed for dereliction of duty,if any, of the officer concerned. In such cases, strictaction should be taken against the officer found guiltyof dereliction of duty.3. The preparation of the panel of lawyers with theapproval of the Attorney General shall be completedwithin three months.4. Steps shall be taken immediately for the constitutionof an able and impartial agency comprising persons ofunimpeachable integrity to perform functions akin tothose of the Director of Prosecutions in U.K. On theconstitution of such a body, the task of supervisingprosecutions launched by the CBI/Enforcement Directorateshall be entrusted to it.5. Till the constitution of the aforesaid body, SpecialCounsel shall be appointed for the conduct of importanttrials on the recommendation of the Attorney General orany other law officer designated by him.60. In view of the problem in the States beingeven more acute, as elaborately discussed in the Reportof the National Police Commission (1979), there is urgentneed for the State Governments also to set up crediblemechanism for selection of the Police Chief in theStates. The Central Government must pursue the matterwith the State Governments and ensure that a similarmechanism, as indicated above, is set up in each Statefor the selection/appointment, tenure, transfer andposting of not merely the Chief of the State Police butalso of all police officers of the rank of Superintendentof Police and above. It is shocking to hear, a matter ofcommon knowledge, that in some States the tenure of aSuperintendent of Police is on an average only a fewmonths and transfers are made for whimsical reasons.Apart from demoralising the police force, it has also theadverse effect of politicising the personnel. It is,therefore, essential that prompt measures are taken bythe Central Government within the ambit of theirconstitutional powers in the federation to impress uponthe State Governments that such a practice is alien tothe envisaged constitutional machinery. The situationdescribed in the National Police Commission’s Report(1979) was alarming and it has become much worse by now.The desperation of the Union Home Minister in his letters https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the State Governments, placed before us at thehearing, reveal a distressing situation which must becured, if the rule of law is to prevail. No action withinthe constitutional scheme found necessary to remedy the situation is too stringent in these circumstances."This is the role of CVC. Now CVC has come before us with the standthat this mode of recruitment is uniform practice. The responsethat this is the practice uniformly followed is something that wecannot accept and do not expect. In this case, where the CBI hastaken a particular stand, regarding the action of the fifthrespondent, we only hope the CVC is not telling us that this is"the practice that is followed across the country". We found toour dismay that in this case, contrary to the fond expectations ofthe Supreme Court that CBI and CVC would act in tandem and ensurethat there is probity of conduct in all public authority, theOfficers were standing on the two sides of the Court hall oppositeeach other. We hope that this is the last occasion that thishappens. The third, fourth and sixth respondent have to act in co-operation and with full comprehension of why they are there. Theytoo are sentinels on the qui vive. We cannot issue any directionsas prayed for by the petitioner since that question is entirelywithin the discretion of the authorities. But, considering thecircumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the directionsthat the respondents shall act in accordance with law. 18.We earnestly hope that the second respondent willensure that the guidelines for appointment of Substitutes arestrictly followed and it is better that the discretion is notvested with one single person. 19.If the system of recruitment of Substitutesimproves and there is greater transparency, it would be, not in theleast, because of the vigilant action taken by the petitioner. glp Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary, the Government Of India Ministry of railways, New Delhi.2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Indian Railways, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation New Delhi.4. The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006+ 1 cc to Mrs.N.Kavitha, Advocate SR.60337+ 1 cc to Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, Advocate SR.60333+ 1 cc to Mr.M. Christopher, Advocate SR.60468+ 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.60449 W.P.No.22071 of 2008PUR (CO)EU 3.12.2009.