Delhi High Court Central Vigilance Commission vs Shri Anand Darbari on 29 May, 2002 JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. All these LPAs being interrelated, with the consent of the parties, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. LPA 222/01 and 234/01 arise out of judgment and order dated 5.3.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge, in CW 4749/97. LPA 426/99 and 10/2000 are by Union of India and Central Vigilance Commission respectively against the judgment dated 28.7.99 passed by the same learned Judge, in CW 3376/98. The respondent herein filed the aforementioned writ petition 4749/97 questioning an order of the CVC contained in letter dated 2351997 whereby and whereunder vigilance clearance in relation to the writ petition was withheld. In CWP 3376/98 the respondent questioned a charge sheet issued against him vide memo dated 24.11.1997. 3. Both the writ petitions had been allowed by the judgment impugned herein. We may notice that CVC was not imp leaded as a party but it was allowed to file an affidavit. CVC has preferred an appeal purported to be aggrieved by certain observations made against it by the learned Single Judge in his impugned judgment. FACTS 4. The respondent was appointed as the ChairmancumMD of the Cement Corporation of India for five years by order dated 3.1.1989. In the year 1995, when the said panel was coming to an end, a large number of complaints including anonymous and pseudonymous complaints were made. No substance was found therein and thus no action was taken thereupon. He was given an extension for two years. Even at that stage several complaints were made but despite that he was given extension for a period up to 1.1.1996. Complaints however were again received against the respondent in the year 1996 which related to impropriety, financial irregularities committed by him and other officials in the matter of award of tenders and grant of contracts. CVC which was constituted by reason of a resolution of the Ministry of Home dated 11.2.1964 informed the Central Govt. that seven out of 52 allegations contained in the complaint needed detailed probe. The Central Govt was advised to make a detailed investigation independently and on the basis of materials purported to have been collected by it during investigation, they apprised the Commission of their views. Pursuant thereto a two member departmental committee was constituted which submitted its report in 1997 exonerating the respondent. The said report was forwarded to CVC. However, the latter disagreed with the said report inter alia on the ground alleging that there were clear pointers to lack of transparency and commercial prudence in the transactions, as also certain amount of rashness in the financial management on the part of the respondent and surprisingly directed investigation against the members of the committee themselves. Purported to be on the basis an independent investigation in the matter, initiation of disciplinary action against the respondent was recommended by CVC. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said recommendation of the said committee and allegedly upon an application of its independent mind, the Central Govt initiated departmental proceedings against the respondent on those charges. 5. CVC called for certain information from the department of Heavy Industry and upon obtaining the same, it was opined that vigilance clearance could not be granted. On 5.6.97 CVC further called for further documents. The Ministry sent the entire record whereafter several affidavits were called on 4.7.1997. Allegedly for two months the Department of Heavy Industry supplied information in piecemeal. By order dated 27.9.1997 the Central Govt scrapped the panel consisting of two short listed candidates on the ground that vigilance clearance could not be obtained in favor of the respondent, whereas the second candidate declined to join the same. 6. PSEB was asked to carry out final selection process where after it shortlisted candidates but ACC appointed one such candidate for CMD AAI. CVC finally refused to grant vigilance clearance on 5.8.97 and recommended disciplinary action against the respondent No. 1. 7. On 6111997, the respondent filed CWP 4749/97 praying for the following reliefs: "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be graciously pleased (a) to allow the writ petition of the petitioner with costs (b) to issue appropriate writ or writs order or orders directions or directions: (i) quashing the order of the respondent cancelling the panel prepared by PESB where the petitioner was placed No. 1 in the panel for the appointment as CMD AAI (ii) directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Chairman AAI in view of his name being No. 1 on the panel prepared by PESB. (iii) Directing the respondent