Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This Appeal by Special Leave has been filed by Shri P. K. Dave, Lt. Governor of Delhi seeking expunction of the following strictures made against him by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 26-5-1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3032 of 1994. The strictures sought to be expunged are: "(a) We would hold that the decision of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, not to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.2 and not to shift him from the post of Director, G.B. Pant Hospital, is vitiated by illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness and mala fides and hence it has no legal sanction. It is declared accordingly. (b) In fact by rejecting the suggestion of the Secretary and the Chief Secretary to transfer Dr. Khalilullah the Lt. Governor acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner and abused his power. (c) The Lt. Governor overruled and rejected the suggestion of the Secretary and the Chief Secretary in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. No fair minded authority could have rejected the suggestion in the given circumstances. (d) In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in alleging that the decision not to take disciplinary action against Dr. Khalilullah and not to shift him from the post of Director of G.B. Pant Hospital was not taken by the Lt. Governor on his own and that it was dictated by someone else, that is, Shri A.N. Verma who is stated to be a close frined and personal patient of Dr. Khalilullah".
(3.) The Writ Petition in question had been filed by the Peoples Union of Civil Liberties and Delhi Medicos' and Scientists' Front alleging massive financial fraud perpetrated by the Director of G.B. Pant Hospital involving more than Rs.39 crores and the loss thereby caused to the public exchequer. One Dr. A. Khalilullah was the Director of G.B. Pant Hospital who was alleged to have committed financial fraud. The prayer in the Writ Petition was that the said Dr. Khalilullah should be immediately suspended and a regular criminal case should be registered against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Authorities should recover from him the public money wasted on account of the alleged culpable act of said Dr. Khalilullah. In the proceedings the appellant had not been arrayed as a party respondent but the State of Delhi through the Chief Secretary and Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health had been arrayed as party respondent apart from Dr. Khalilullah, the then Director of G. B. Pant Hospital. The applicant had alleged that certain complaints had been received by the Department of Revenue (Intelligence) against the financial irregularities committed by Dr. Khalilullah and on receipt of such complaints various searches have been conducted in the premises of several suppliers of hospital equipments of G.B. Pant Hospital. In course of search several articles were seized and several incriminating documents have also been seized. Notices also have been issued to the suppliers as well as to the authorities. But the Delhi Administration had appointed a Committee to investigate into the matter which is commonly known as 'Arora Committee. The said Committee had clearly found several irregularities to the extent that even machines and equipments imported for G.B. Pant Hospital have never been brought to the hospital and are still lying in the cellars duly packed for years together. The report further indicated that some of the machines purchased for G.B. Pant Hospital from the Government funds were found installed in a private hospital like Batra Hospital. Notwithstanding the aforesaid report of the Arora Committee no action has been taken against Dr. Khalilullah. The Collector of Customs had imposed penalty on several suppliers for alleged irregularities committed by them. In June 1993 the Controller and Auditor General of India in his report to the to the Union of India devoted to the gross financial malpractices in the G. B. Pant Hospital and when the report was placed in Parliament the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. A. K. Gupta, Dean of Maulana Azad Medical College, Gupta Committee also submitted its report in October 1993 and the Committee found gross financial irregularities to the extent that the equipments worth Rs.17 crores were unaccounted and 228 files relating to purchase of equipments were missing from the official records. It is on the basis of that report when the Health Secretary to the Government of Delhi Administration had recommended suspension of Dr. Khalilullah or his shifting from G. B. Pant Hospital so that appropriate enquiry can be made in a congenial atmosphere, no action was taken against him. It was also alleged that said Dr. Khalilullah while continuing as the Director of the Hospital is destroying the original record to wipe off the evidence and, therefore, the applicants prayed for the relief as already stated. The respondents before the High Court filed their counter affidavits denying the allegations made and opposing the relief sought for. The respondent No. 2 Dr. Khalilullah himself in his affidavit denied the allegations and contended that he has no role in the so-called financial irregularities and though fraud had been committed by the officers below him he had no knowledge of it nor had he given any consent to it. He had further stated that this application which is in nature of Public Interest Litigation had been filed as the behest of one Dr. Anoop Safaya. In the rejoinder filed by the respondents it was further averred that no action was taken against Dr. Khalilullah because of unusual interest shown by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and it is because of him the Union Home Secretary had addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration not to precipitate action against Dr. Khalilullah and it is because of this external pressure, against the public interest, the appellant did not accept the recommendations of the Health Secretary to the Delhi Administration as well as the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration and allowed the continuance of Dr. Khalilullah as the Director of G. B. Pant Hospital. The High Court ultimately considered all the relevant documents and came to the conclusion that the matter relating to initiation of disciplinary action against Dr. Khalilullah did not receive a proper and fair consideration and, therefore, the authority competent to take the decision in the matter should consider and decide the question in accordance with law. Further in view of the allegations about missing of purchase files and destruction of evidence, the attempts to cover up the fraud, the possible involvement of Dr. Khalilullah himself in the fraud, pending investigation into the irregularities, the continued damage that could be done to a fair and proper investigation and the need for maintaining public confidence in the matter, since the authorities concerned were indifferent and irresponsible in their attitude on account of external pressure the Court directed that Dr. Khalilullah should not be allowed to function as Director of G. B. Pant Hospital and he should forthwith relinquish his office as Director of the Hospital and shall handover charge to the senior most Head of the Department in the Hospital. We are not concerned with the legality of the aforesaid directions in the present case. Suffice it to mention that Dr. Khalilullah had moved this Court by way of Special Leave Petition and the same was disposed of by order dated 5th June, 1995 directing the Central Government to take a decision and submit a report as to initiation of any disciplinary action against Dr. Khalilullah by June 15, 1995 and since no interim stay was granted in respect of the High Court judgment the order had to be complied with. But in the judgment in question since role of the appellant came up for consideration more particularly his inaction in not shifting Dr. Khalilullah as Director of G. B. Pant Hospital notwithstanding the recommendation of the Health Secretary and Chief Secretary to Delhi Administration the aforesaid strictures had been passed by the High Court which the appellant wants expunction.;