- (1.) This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by one Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, an incumbent of Indian Forest Service (1969 Batch, U.P. Cadre) who rendered services to the respondent State and Government of India in various positions for about 35 years till his retirement. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was illegally detained by the respondent authorities after implicating him in false vigilance cases and dishonouring the High Court's directions. Because of the malicious, willful and contemptuous acts of the State and clear abuse of legal process, he and his family members had to suffer a great ordeal of mental agony and heavy financial loss besides being defamed in the society. Hence, he prayed this Court to express displeasure over the violation of his family members' fundamental rights and to direct the respondent to pay compensation for the loss of his professional career, reputation and for causing mental agony.
(2.) The relevant facts as submitted by the petitioner, who argued his case before us in person, are that he has rendered about 35 years service to the State of U.P. and the Government of India, with an unblemished record. He became a Member of the National Board for Wild Life (for short "NBWL") on 22nd September, 2003. The then Chief Minister of the respondent State wanted the petitioner to take necessary steps so as to get the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh District denotified by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th October, 2003. As the petitioner did not comply with the directions, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in the guise of a complaint by the MLA of his own party against the petitioner, issued directions to the Director General, Vigilance Establishment of the State to initiate a vigilance enquiry against him. As per the procedure envisaged for the purpose by D.O. Letter No.2020/39(2)- 12(5)-74, dated 12-09-1997 (Annexure P-11), before a case is sent for State Vigilance Establishment, the approval of the State Vigilance Committee is a condition precedent, but the respondent State without following the prescribed procedure, conducted vigilance enquiry and removed him from his post. The petitioner moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 to declare that the vigilance enquiry against him was done in clear violation of the prescribed procedure. The High Court by orders dated 30th January, 2004 and 14th September, 2007 directed the State Vigilance Committee to carry out the enquiry proceedings, but the respondent did not comply with the directions of the High Court.
(3.) While that being so, Writ Petition No.2985 of 2004 was filed before the High Court by an advocate arraying the petitioner as respondent No.4 therein. According to the petitioner, the writ petition (PIL) was got purportedly filed by the advocate who was working in the office of the then Advocate General, making false averments stating that the vigilance committee had already completed the enquiry in various issues against him. As a matter of fact, on the date of institution of the said writ petition, the enquiry against the petitioner was not even referred to the State Vigilance Committee. In the said petition, the High Court, on 25th June, 2004, passed an order which, inter alia, reads thus: 'List this case on 12.02.2004, Vigilance Committee shall carry on with the proceeding, but no final order shall be passed. It has been further averred that the vigilance committee had already completed the enquiry in various issues against the respondent No.4, namely Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh and the matter is serious in nature in mis- utilization of Government funds in its own way. Nowhere the Division Bench vide its order dated 30.01.04 had stopped the State to lodge FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance Committee comes to the conclusion that some cognizable offence is committed by respondent No.4. It was always open for the State to lodge FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance Committee had come to a conclusion that some cognizable offence has been committed by respondent No.4, it is always open for the State to lodge an FIR, if some cognizable offence is found to have been committed by the Respondent No.4, and if it comes out from the report of the Vigilance Committee, not only the State but also any person can lodge an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with respect to a cognizable offence said to have been committed by a particular person. The Division Bench has never stopped the State to lodge an FIR since the Departmental proceeding can very well continue simultaneously. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands finally disposed of.";