- (1.) THE petitioner herein seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents -1 to 3 to initiate proper action immediately on the basis of his complaint dated 15.10.2010 as against the 4th respondent herein under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) THE petitioner herein, who is a suspended staff/Special Assistant of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) over a 'telephone tapping scandal', had submitted a complaint dated 15.10.2010 to the Government as well as the DVAC against the 4th respondent, who is an IPS Officer of 1988 Batch allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. The crux of the allegation in the complaint is that the 4th respondent, who is holding the post of Joint Director, DVAC, and vested with the responsibility of ensuring probity in public life and a corrupt -free administration, is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.10 crores. The details of immovable properties said to have been purchased through such means are given in the complaint thus: - a. One acre land in Yelagiri, Vellore Dt. b. 2 grounds measuring 4800 sq. ft. Manapakkam c. One acre in Thaiyur Village in Kancheepuram Dt. d. Four grounds in Sholinganallur e. 4 grounds in Karapakkam f. = acre three places in (total 1 = Acres), Ooty g. 25 cents in Kutralam h. 1 acre in Hosur District. i. 20 cents in Kovaipudur, Coimbatore District. It is further alleged in the complaint that the 4th respondent is also in possession of movable properties in the form of jewels, fixed deposits, shares and debentures in his name and in the name of his family members. The particulars furnished by the petitioner being suggestive that the 4th respondent has committed offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite the repeated requests made by the petitioner to immediately transfer the 4th respondent from the post of Joint Director (DVAC), which is an important post of supervising corruption cases against public servants, and to suspend him immediately in order to have a free and fair investigation in the criminal misconduct committed by him, no action is so far initiated by respondents -1 to 3 nor he was apprised of the action taken, if any, by way of a reply or communication. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition to direct respondents -1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 15.10.2010.
(3.) MR .M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strongly submit that though the petitioner has made a written complaint dated 15.10.2010 giving exhaustive details of the movable and immovable assets said to have been acquired by the 4th respondent disproportionate to his known source of income, respondents -1 to 3 have neither registered a complaint nor transferred/suspended the 4th respondent from the present post. When the main purpose of the State Vigilance Commission is to advise the Government on the major administrative problems of prevention of corruption in public services in general and the manner in which individual cases of corruption that are brought to light should be dealt with, the utter failure on the part of respondents -1 to 3 to investigate into the complaint of the petitioner in detail would not only reflect the unfair and unreasonable attitude on their part but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3 -B. By referring to Clause 10 (2) and (5) under Part -II of the Manual of the DVAC, learned counsel further submits that once a petition is received in the Directorate, the same should be properly scrutinised with the purpose of identifying whether the acknowledgement or reply should go to the petitioner and petitions received from well -known or identifiable organisations should invariably be replied to; that being so, in the present case, since it is apparent that no action was ever seem to have been taken on a serious complaint and no reply was made to the petitioner by the authorities, the direction sought for may be issued. 3 -C. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Judgal Kishore (1988 (1) SCC 626) for the proposition that it has been consistently held by courts that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. In the present case, the duty cast upon respondents -1 to 3 in considering the request of the petitioner in terms of what is provided in the Manual having not been carried out, the connected confidential records may be called for to find out the action taken by the authorities in giving effect to the written complaint filed against the fourth respondent. 3 -D. By referring to the following observation made by the Apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998 (1) SCC 226), " These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. " learned counsel would urge that, in the given case, a positive and suitable direction may be issued by way of mandamus directing the respondents -1 to 3 to properly probe into the allegations, submit a preliminary report and to take further action on the basis of such report. Stoutly opposing the prayer made in the writ petition, Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents -1 to 3, submits that the petition, dated 15.10.2010, containing certain allegations against the 4th respondent, was received by the Government on 21.10.2010 and the same was forwarded to the Director General of Police (DGP) on 10.11.2010 for enquiry and report. In the letter, dated 21.12.2010, the DGP had stated that a discreet preliminary enquiry conducted on the petition by the Inspection General (IG) of Police at the Intelligence Wing revealed that the allegations made against the 4th respondent are totally false, motivated and baseless. Further, the Officer who enquired into the complaint found that the petition might have been sent to tarnish the image of the Senior Police Officer/R4, who is known for his unblemished service and high integrity. On the basis of the outcome of the discreet enquiry held by a top -ranking Police Officer attached to the Intelligence Wing, the Government is of the view that no further enquiry or proceeding is required in the case and therefore, the question of registration of a case with reference to the complaint of the petitioner does not arise at all. 4 -B. By adverting to the observation of the Apex Court in P.Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1971 AIR 520 = 1970 SCR (3) 931) and that of this Court in 2010 (4) CTC 762 (A.K.Viswanathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu) to the effect that if a complaint is received against any high ranking public servant with acts of dishonesty, etc., before lodging a first information against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer, learned Government Pleader submits that on the basis of the above ratio laid down by the Courts, the Government, on receipt of the written complaint from the petitioner, thought it fit to hold a discreet preliminary enquiry by appointing the Inspector General of Police of the Intelligence Wing, who after collecting information relating to the allegations made in the written complaint of the petitioner and enquiring into the authenticity thereof, ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was arrested by the CBCID while he was serving in DVAC, Chennai, in connection with a Phone Tapping Case, during the pendency of trial of the case, approached this Court by filing a writ petition with a view to delay the departmental proceedings initiated against him and the 4th respondent herein, who is holding the post of Joint Director of the very same Directorate, in his official capacity, took all earnest steps to prove the ill intention of the petitioner behind filing the writ petition, as a result of which, the writ petition was dismissed and ultimately, steps were taken to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner; and only in such circumstances, enraged by the persistent efforts of the said Officer in pursuing the proceedings against him, the petitioner made the baseless complaint against the Officer, who is known for his unblemished service and high integrity. Inasmuch as the complaint is the clear handwork of a person, who is ill -motivated and rancorous against the Officer for his honest efforts in pursuing the proceedings connected to the phone tapping scandal which in a way had its impact on the reputation of the Directorate, this Court may straight away turn down the plea of the petitioner. ;