IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8501 of 2008 AZAM SIDDIQUI son of Late Bedi, resident of Mohalla- Old Azimabad Colony, PO- Mahendru, District- Patna Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhawan, INA. GPO Complex, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-23 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-01 4. The Senior DDG (Vigilance) DOT Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi 01 5. The CMD, BSNL, Statesman House, Barah Khamba Road, New Delhi- 01 6. The Chief Vigilance Officer office of CMD, BSNL, Corporate Office, room no. 401A, Statesman House, Barah Khamba Roda, New Dehli-01 7. The Chief General Manager Telecom, Bihar Telecom Circle, Sanchar Sadan, Patna 8. The Central Bureau of Investigation, through Director, CBI, New Delhi 9. Mr. V. K. Shukla, son of not known to the petitioner at present, Advisor, DOT Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi 10. Mr. Radheshyam, son of not known to the petitioner Ex G.M.T.D, Allahabad 11. Mr. Shyam Babu son of not known to the petitioner Ex DGM (P & D), Allahabad at present GM (NTR) Patna ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents no. 5, 6,7,10 & 11: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Adv Mr. Rohitabh Das, Advocate For the. CBI: Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC For Respondents no. 1, 3 & 4: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate For respondent no.9: Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha Advocate: For respondent no.2: Mr Satyendra Kumar Jha Advocate: ------------------------ 6 12-01-2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner claims that through annexure-1 dated 15.10.2003 he acted as a whistle blower and addressed a letter to the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Uttar Pradesh (East) Telecom Circle, Lucknow. The issue raised by the petitioner in annexure-1 was alleged loss to BSNL on account of routing commercial traffics of STD and ISD calls through other means - 2 - meant for the local calls. According to the petitioner a policy decision vide resolution dated 21.4.2004 (annexure-3 series) was taken by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension (department of Personnel and Training),New Delhi and in accordance with the said policy the petitioner filed formal complaint before the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 11.7.2005 as contained in annexure-5. Petitioner has given details and annexed a copy of judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to support his contention that authorities of BSNL as Deputy General Manager posted at Patna awarded minor punishment to the petitioner only to victimize him for his role of whistle blower. The Central Administrative Tribunal intervened and quashed such orders vide annexure-21 dated 25.7.2008. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has bonafide apprehension that in near future he may be subjected to further victimization for being a whistle blower in the aforesaid matter. Hence, petitioner has prayed to this court to pass orders to ensure that protection against any kind of victimization of the petitioner is afforded to the petitioner by the departmental authorities as per policy decision of the Union of India contained in resolution dated 21.4.2004 (annexure-3 series). On behalf of the respondents counter affidavits have been filed and several issues were raised to oppose the writ petition but this court is not inclined to go into the merit of any of the controversies between the parties. A perusal of the scheme - 3 - contained in annexure-3 dated 21.4.2004 shows that against victimization a whistle blower may file an application before the designated agency seeking redress in the matter and the designated agency shall take such action as deemed fit. The CVC is admittedly a designated agency under the resolution noticed above. It appears that earlier petitioner had raised apprehensions of victimization through a letter dated 26.7.2007 (annexure-12) addressed to the Secretary, CVC, New Delhi. However, subsequently he has got relief for the present under orders of Central Administrative Tribunal against which the employer has probably decided to move the higher authorities. Be as it may, for meeting any future apprehensions or contingencies the petitioner may move the CVC, the designated authority, in respect of his apprehensions to seek appropriate direction against the concerned authorities. It would not be appropriate for this court to abrogate to itself the power of the designated agency in this matter. It goes without saying that if the action or order of the designated authority does not satisfy the petitioner he may approach the concerned court who have jurisdiction over the authority, the CVC at New Delhi. It is expected that if the petitioner approaches the designated authority for any relief, his application shall be considered without unnecessary delay. This writ petition is disposed of. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)