The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea filed by the Lokpal of India against the Delhi High Court's quashing of its order for a CBI preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in recruitment and promotions within the National Productivity Council.
The High Court had quashed the order, holding that before forming a prima facie opinion regarding an action under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lok Ayukta Act, the Lokpal must give an opportunity of hearing to the public servant. The High Court had set aside the Lokpal's order passed in July 2024 directing a CBI preliminary enquiry into the allegations against Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh during his tenure in 2023 as the Secretary of the DPIIT, under which the NPC functions.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Lokpal's challenge to the High Court's view, after hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for the Lokpal), Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (for the respondents) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. In view of an observation by the High Court in its order that the Lokpal would be at liberty to proceed against the respondents as per Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, the bench found no reason to interfere and disposed of the plea.
During the hearing, Ranjit Kumar contended that after a closure report from the Investigating Officer, the Lokpal may sometimes feel that something needs to be examined and issue a show-cause notice. Under similar circumstances, the Lokpal issued a show-cause to the respondents, but they obtained a stay. Later, they filed a plea before the Lokpal contesting maintainability of the complaint, however, the same was rejected and the rejection order never challenged.
The senior counsel further pressed that the Defence Secretary was the appellate authority under the relevant rules. The SG however remarked, "not deciding an appeal can never be a crime...would the Hon'ble Lokpal consider going into such trivial issues?" Hearing the submissions, Justice Bagchi noted that there was no case made out on dereliction of duty. "We have seen the underlying facts. Atleast in our estimation, they do not amount to a dereliction of duty of sorts. Maybe in advisory role, which the Secretary has been holding, [he] wanted to get a better view of the appellate authority".
The judge further said that "bordering on corruption" should be understood differently from "error of judgment". "There is an error of judgment in all probability, not a case of bordering on corruption", he added. Considering the nature of the allegations, the CJI questioned the Lokpal whether in its view there was an element of criminality made out even if the allegations were taken to be true on face value. "See the danger to you as an institution also. If you start issuing notice in such matters, you will be extremely overburdened. People will not spare you even for the smallest issue." the CJI said.
Follow us
