-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2321 OF 2008 Ashok Singh : Petitioner V/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Naidu i/b. Ritu Singh for the petitioner. Mr.J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, with Mr.M.D.Siodia and Mr.R. Mahadik i/b. Rustamji & Ginwalla for resp. nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & S.J.KATHAWALLA,JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order placing him under suspension, inter alia, on the ground that the CVC guidelines have not been followed. Mr.Cama, the learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the CVC guidelines as far as the preliminary investigation have been followed and the charge-sheet as well as suspension order refer to the investigation. There is no material produced by the petitioner which casts a doubt that a preliminary inquiry as claimed by the respondents was not held. -: 2 :- 2. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the suspension is mala fide in view of the fact that the petitioner made a complaint and uncovered large scale corruption within four days of lodging a complaint. According to the petitioner, he was suspended on 16.5.2008 because he made a complaint on 14.5.2008 to the C.B.I. under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 about a fraud worth Rs.200 crores. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, however, submits that the petitioner’s complaint to the C.B.I. was, in fact, a counter measure adopted by him against the investigation conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, who submitted a report on 9.5.2008 to the Chairman & Managing Director of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Vigilance Officer has submitted a report because the petitioner had taken action against one Limje. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner at this stage. In all probabilities, the contention on behalf of the company that the petitioner’s complaint itself was motivated and initiated as counter measure to the investigation report received by the Chairman & Managing Director on 9.5.2008 from the Chief Vigilance Officer appears to be correct. The power to suspend an employee in cases relating to corruption is not doubted. -: 3 :- 3. There is no prohibition in the CVC guidelines on the power of an employer to suspend particularly where misappropriation is alleged. The guidelines are as follows:- "6.3.4 Public interest should be the guiding factor in deciding whether or not a Government servant, including a Government servant on leave, should be placed under suspension; or whether such action should be taken even while the matter is under investigation and before a prima-facie case has been established. Certain circumstances under which it may be considered appropriate to do so are indicated below for the guidance of competent authorities: (i) Where the continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g., apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents); (ii) Where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which he is working; (iii) Where the continuance in office of the Government servant will be against the wider public interest, e.g., if there is a public scandal and it is considered necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals, particularly corruption; (iv) Where a preliminary enquiry into allegations has revealed a prima-facie case justifying -: 4 :- criminal or departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service; (v) Where the public servant is suspected to have engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State." 4. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to file an additional reply to the charge-sheet within six weeks from today. S.A. BOBDE, J. S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.