Case: Vivek Batra Vs. U.O.I

the appellant is an officer of cadre of Indian Revenue Service (for shortwho entered into the service through 1992 batch. It is stated that an FIR RC No. BA1/2005/A0017 was registered on 04.04.2005 by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (Respondent No. 4) in respect of disproportionate assets to the known sources of the appellant. The prosecution case is that the appellant has amassed the assets valued at Rs.1,27,38,353/- in his name and in the names of his wife and minor son during the check period 04.01.1993 to 31.03.2004, which is disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The investigation took almost six years to get completed, which revealed that a sum of Rs.56,30,296/- was invested by the appellant through Benami transactions in the names of his wife and son in two companies, namely, M/s. ARJ Impex Private Limited and M/s. Malik Hospitality Services Private Limited. According to CBI, thewife Priyanka Batra incorporated a company, M/s. ARJ Impex Limited, to engage in import-export business, and then sold her shares in the company to her two uncles, namely, Karan Singh and Vijay Kumar. Themain source of income was unsecured loans obtained from various companies and individuals, many of which were never paid back, several of these loans were from Priyanka Batra herself. Further, though the sale of income of the company was minimal, it acquired assets of Rs.85,70,770/- during the check period. It appears that Karan Singh and Vijay Kumar had incorporated another company called M/s. Malik Hospitality Services, whose main source of income was unsecured loans from various individuals and companies. The company had acquired assets of Rs.20,52,013/- and had unrepaid loans of Rs.26,77,000/- during the check period. Priyanka Batra was connected to Malik Hospitality Services as a public notice appeared in Nav Bharat Times, showing her as the intended purchaser of a property that was to be bought for the company.3. The appellant was arrested on 02.09.2010, and after about three days released on bail. He was placed under suspension by the authority concerned. The CBI sought sanction for prosecution of the appellant from the competent authority on which the file was processed, and at the first stage on 03.05.2011 advice of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was sought by the Finance Department. On 01.09.2011, the CVC recommended that the sanction for prosecution be granted. The department concerned (Finance Department) endorsed the matter again on 01.11.2011 for fresh opinion of the CVC. But the CVC, through its Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011, reiterated its opinion. The Finance Department thereafter referred the matter to Department of Personnel and Training (for shortfor its views. The DOPT did not appreciate the stand of the Finance Department that the sanction should be accorded only if the CBI provides sufficient evidence and communicated the same through letter dated 29.03.2012. However, it observed that administrative warning could be issued to the appellant for not intimating the transactions to Finance Department. Through letter dated 28.05.2012, the DOPT conveyed that insufficiency of evidence can be tested in the court of law and sanction for prosecution can be granted. Finally, the competent authority, vide its order dated 09.10.2012, granted sanction for prosecution of the appellant, who challenged the same before the High Court in the writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

Reasoning: 11. Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of time, not to grant sanction so as to give the decision to grant sanction the colour of a review of any such earlier order, as has been contended before us. The opinion of CVC, which was reaffirmed and ultimately prevailed in according the sanction, cannot be said to be irrelevant for the reason that clause (g) of Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 provides that it is one of the functions of the CVC to tender advice to the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by the Government.