Bhajan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors

Judgment

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Government Order dated 30.09.2020, whereby a vigilance inquiry was directed against him. The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the said order and the proceedings pursuant thereto, contending that the action is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 20 of the Constitution.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner joined service as an Assistant Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam in 1984, was promoted as an Executive Engineer in 1992, a Superintending Engineer in 2002, and a Chief Engineer in 2005, upon opting for service in the newly created State of Uttarakhand. In 2009, he was appointed as officiating Managing Director of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. Pursuant to the framing of the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (Managing Director) Rules, 2011, appointments were to be made by promotion Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 1 Ashish Naithani J. from amongst Chief Engineers. In 2012, the appointment of another

officer as Managing Director was challenged by the Petitioner and ultimately quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.08.2013, consequent to which the Petitioner was promoted as Managing Director on regular basis by notification dated 19.12.2013.

3. During his tenure, several complaints alleging corruption and misuse of office were filed against him. According to the Petitioner , such complaints were examined at the departmental level and rejected as false.

4. On 27.04.2020, the Petitioner was notified to retire on

30.09.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation. On 29.07.2020, Dr. Neeraj Kherwal, IAS, was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the complaints, and on 31.07.2020, the Petitioner was transferred to the post of Advisor, which he challenged in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 216 of 2020. On the very date of his retirement, i.e. 30.09.2020, the impugned order was issued directing a vigilance inquiry.

5. Pursuant thereto, the Inquiry Officer directed the Petitioner to furnish his PAN, bank account particulars, and financial details, including those of his family members. The Petitioner , by reply dated

11.11.2020, denied the allegations and contended that the complaints had already been rejected earlier. The Respondents, however, assert that despite repeated reminders, the Petitioner failed to provide the requisite information.

6. It further appears that earlier public interest litigations, PIL No. 197 of 2019, PIL No. 10 of 2020 (S/B), and PIL No. 09 of 2020,were filed on similar allegations, in which the State defended Petitionerand the matters were either withdrawn or disposed of.

7. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition, initially passed an interim order on 30.06.2021 staying the operation of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 2 Ashish Naithani J. Government Order dated 30.09.2020. Thereafter, by order dated

10.09.2024, the interim protection was vacated and the Vigilance Department was permitted to proceed with the inquiry, with a further direction to the Petitioner to extend full cooperation in the course of such inquiry.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present challenge is directed only to the Government Order dated

30.09.2020, which directs initiation of a vigilance inquiry, and not to any criminal case or charge sheet. It was argued that the record discloses a sequence of complaints that have already been examined at the departmental level and found to be baseless. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the material placed on record by the Petitioner, including the counter-affidavits filed by the State in earlier proceedings, to contend that the allegations stood effectively closed and that there was no fresh material to justify reopening the matter.

9. Developing the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides. Attention was invited to the dates. The preliminary inquiry officer was appointed on 29.07.2020. The Petitioner was shifted to the post of Advisor on 31.07.2020, which posting was alleged to be outside the statutory framework of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, as adapted in Uttarakhand. On 27.04.2020, the Petitioner had already been notified to superannuate on 30.09.2020. The vigilance order was then issued on the very date of superannuation.

10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this chronology discloses a premeditated design to stigmatise the Petitioner upon exit, notwithstanding the earlier departmental consideration which had exonerated him.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking direction, as it neither refers to any fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 3 Ashish Naithani J. complaint nor records any preliminary verification capable of satisfying the test against a roving inquiry. It was urged that the State Government’s own guidelines governing vigilance action mandate the formation of a prima facie opinion founded on fresh and tangible material. According to learned Senior Counsel, no such material has been placed by the Respondents.

12. The initiation of proceedings, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition, which this Court, in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction, is bound to restrain.

13. On the question of legal bar, learned Senior Counsel contended that although Article 20 is primarily concerned with criminal prosecution, its guarantee against double jeopardy reflects a larger constitutional policy against repeated proceedings on the same factual substratum. It was argued that once the same allegations were examined at the highest level and rejected, and once the State itself defended the Petitioner in connected public law proceedings on identical facts, the State is estopped from initiating a vigilance probe on the same foundation without showing any new incriminating material.

14. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the prior public interest litigations and service writs. It was submitted that PIL No. 197 of 2019 was withdrawn only after the Division Bench indicated that it would be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 10 of 2020 and PIL No. 9 of 2020 were disposed of without any adverse finding. In each of these matters, the State filed counter-affidavits defending the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the State cannot now turn around and rely upon the very same allegations to direct a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the relevant annexures show that identical allegations were the subject of those proceedings.

15. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that the requisitions issued post-retirement, calling for PAN and bank details of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 4 Ashish Naithani J. Petitioner as well as of his family members, are overbroad and disproportionate. It was argued that even if a limited inquiry were lawful, it cannot authorise intrusive demands without a proper foundation and without identifying the specific transactions under inquiry. The Petitioner, it is said, responded on 11.11.2020, denying the allegations and pointing out that the complaints were old and already rejected, yet the Respondents persisted with generalised requisitions.

16. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State submitted that there has been no formal vigilance inquiry into the allegations to date. What the Petitioner relies upon are departmental comments and administrative notings that had examined certain complaints only for limited purposes. Learned AGA, however, submitted that such administrative consideration cannot foreclose the initiation of a statutory vigilance inquiry, which alone is empowered to comprehensively examine allegations of corruption, disproportionate assets, or abuse of office.

17. Learned AGA relied upon the scheme of the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, as applicable in Uttarakhand, along with the Notification dated 12.02.1965, to submit the Vigilance Establishment is empowered to investigate offences of corruption and allied misconduct against public servants. It was submitted that the impugned order merely sets in motion a fact-finding process by the competent vigilance agency, which is well within its jurisdiction. The High Court in writ jurisdiction ought not to interdict an investigative step at the threshold, particularly when no prosecution has been launched and no prejudice is shown beyond the inconvenience of cooperating.

18. On the Petitioner’s plea of earlier closure, learned AGA submitted that there is no adjudication on merits by a judicial or quasi- judicial forum that would attract res judicata or issue estoppel. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 5 Ashish Naithani J. Departmental comments do not constitute a bar to a vigilance probe. The prior public interest litigations did not culminate in any adjudication exonerating the Petitioner. A withdrawal or a summary disposal in a PIL context cannot be treated as a clean chit. Therefore, the contention that the State is estopped from investigating is misconceived.

19. As to the timing of the order, learned AGA submitted that the allegation of mala fides is without particulars and is not borne out by any material. The initiation of a vigilance process on 30.09.2020 does not by itself establish any oblique motive. The Petitioner’s retirement does not extinguish the State’s power to inquire into acts committed during service. The law recognises that investigations into offences of corruption and related misconduct can continue post-retirement, subject to statutory requirements at the stage of prosecution.

20. Learned AGA further submitted that the requisitions seeking PAN, bank account particulars and related financial information are not overbroad in the context of corruption inquiries, where the flow of funds and beneficial ownership are often traced through family members. The requisitions were made after repeated notices and remain essential for effective inquiry. The Petitioner’s stance of non- cooperation has delayed the process and cannot be a ground to quash the initiation itself.

21. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 4 adopted the submissions of the learned AGA and added that the allegations span the award of contracts and alleged pecuniary advantage. It was submitted that the Petitioner’s reply dated 11.11.2020 is a bare denial, whereas the vigilance agency requires objective data to verify or falsify the allegations. Without the cooperation sought, the agency cannot even conduct preliminary verification. Learned Counsel submitted that the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 6 Ashish Naithani J. writ petition is premature and is an attempt to stall a lawful inquiry into serious allegations affecting a public utility body.

22. Learned Counsel for RespondentNo. 3 supported the State and submitted that the administrative decisions in 2020, including the appointment of a preliminary inquiry officer and personnel postings, were taken in the ordinary course of administration and cannot be read as evidence of mala fides. It was argued that the Petitioner ’s challenge is essentially to the wisdom of initiating an inquiry. The court ought not to substitute its view at such a nascent stage and should allow the statutory process to unfold in accordance with law.

23. 24. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The challenge raised the Government Order dated

30.09.2020, whereby a vigilance inquiry was directed against the Petitioner, who had demitted office as Managing Director of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam on the same day. The issues that fall for determination are: (i) whether the initiation of the inquiry suffers from arbitrariness or mala fides, and (ii) (ii) whether the prior administrative consideration of complaints by the Department, as approved by the Chief Minister, precludes the initiation of a formal vigilance investigation.

25. The U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, as adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, lays down the statutory foundation for investigation into offences of corruption and allied misconduct by public servants. Section 2 of the Act defines the Vigilance Establishment, and Section 3 empowers the State Government to extend its jurisdiction to offences specified in the Schedule. By Notification dated 12.02.1965, the Vigilance Establishment was authorised to inquire into allegations of corruption, abuse of official position, and related offences. The statutory competence of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 7 Ashish Naithani J. Vigilance Establishment investigate allegations against Petitioner, who held the office of Managing Director of a State utility, stands firmly established.

26. The reliance placed on Articles 14, 16, 19, and 20 of the Constitution has also been considered. The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 undoubtedly mandates that administrative action must be free from arbitrariness. In the present case, however, the initiation of a vigilance inquiry cannot be characterised as arbitrary merely because earlier departmental observationsreflected a different view. So long as the authority competent in law has jurisdiction and forms an opinion that the allegations merit investigation, such initiation cannot be interdicted solely on the ground that an administrative authority had previously taken a contrary position.

27. As to Article 20, the protection against double jeopardy operates in the sphere of criminal prosecution and punishment. It cannot be invoked to bar a statutory vigilance inquiry, which is an investigatory process and has not culminated in prosecution, much less punishment. The plea of double jeopardy is therefore inapposite in the present factual matrix.

28. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has laid emphasis on the timing of the order, namely its issuance on the date of superannuation, as indicative of mala fides. While the chronology of events may lend an appearance of harshness, mala fides must be specifically pleaded and duly established. The record does not reveal any personal animus or extraneous consideration attributable to the authority issuing the order. The principle that allegations of mala fides cannot rest on conjecture but must be substantiated by cogent material is too well settled to warrant reiteration. Mere coincidence between the date of superannuation and the initiation of inquiry, without more, does not meet that standard. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 8 Ashish Naithani J.

29. The submission that earlier public interest litigations and writ petitions on the same allegations were withdrawn or disposed of, and that the State therein defended the Petitioner, does not alter the legal position. The withdrawal or summary disposal of a PIL does not amount to an adjudication exonerating the Petitioner.

30. It is also of significance that the Respondents have drawn attention to the Petitioner’s lack of cooperation in the inquiry. Notices were admittedly issued seeking the Petitioner's PAN, bank account details, and financial particulars, as well as those of his immediate family members. The Petitioner does not dispute receipt of such requisitions, but contends that they were overbroad.

31. In corruption inquiries, however, financial scrutiny necessarily extends to immediate family, as beneficial ownership or pecuniary advantage may be routed through such relations. The requisitions, therefore, cannot be said to be irrelevant or disproportionate, and the Petitioner’s non-compliance has, in fact, contributed to the delay in progress of the inquiry.

32. In evaluating the rival submissions, it must be borne in mind that this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters of investigation is narrowly circumscribed. The settled principle is that the High Court will not ordinarily interfere at the stage of initiation of an inquiry or investigation unless the action is shown to be patently without jurisdiction or vitiated by demonstrable mala fides. The power of judicial review is intended to prevent abuse of authority, not to stifle lawful investigative processes at their very inception.

33. In the present case, the Government Order dated 30.09.2020 has been issued in exercise of statutory competence, is traceable to the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, and directs only an inquiry into allegations. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any material irregularity, absence of jurisdiction, or mala fides of such Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 9 Ashish Naithani J. nature as would justify quashing of the order at the very threshold. On the contrary, the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the Petitioner’s position as head of a public utility, makes it imperative that a full inquiry be allowed to proceed in the public interest.

34. For these reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out at this stage. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Government Order dated 30.09.2020, being referable to statutory competence and confined to directing an inquiry into allegations, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The objections raised by the Petitioner primarily on earlier administrative notings, which do not foreclose the initiation of a vigilance inquiry under the law. The plea of mala fides is unsubstantiated, and no jurisdictional error is demonstrated. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the public office held by the Petitioner, this Court is not persuaded to exercise writ jurisdiction in his favour. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.)

26.08.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1 c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE 29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 10 Ashish Naithani J.