- (1.) WE have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Luthra, Additional Solicitor General of India for the C.B.I. However as Sri Luthra states that as he has instructions also to appear on behalf of the D.O.P.T., we have heard him in that capacity also.
(2.) THIS order will cover all the connected writ petitions. The background for this order may first be noticed. Disposing of Writ Petition No. 3611 (MB) of 2011 (P.I.L.), Sachchidanand (Sachchey) versus State of U.P. and other connected Writ petitions, on 15.11.2011 an earlier Division bench after examining the reports of the yearly inspections by the Central Joint Review Missions, the reports of the inspecting Central NRHM Finance teams, report of the Director of Audit and Account, Government of U.P. dated 4.7.2011 and other material brought on record by the petitioners, was satisfied that a prima facie case of gross irregularities, financial and administrative in the execution and implementation of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) including the matter of award of contracts, procurement of goods and articles etc. was disclosed. The Division Bench thereupon directed the Director CBI to get a preliminary enquiry conducted in the matter of execution and implementation of the NRHM and utilisation of funds at various levels during such implementation in the entire State of U.P. and to register a regular case in respect of persons against whom a prima facie cognizable offence appeared to be made out and to proceed in accordance with law. The enquiry was to relate from the period commencing 2005-2006 till date. The inquiry was to be concluded within four months. The State government and Central Governments were directed to render full support and co-operation to the CBI. Significantly the said order of the Division Bench dated 15.11.2011 has not been challenged by the petitioner or others before the Apex Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi in his submissions before this Court on earlier dates also does not question the propriety of the aforesaid order. He concedes that the restriction under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, requiring permission from the State government before allowing the CBI to investigate into commission of cognizable offences within a State would not apply if the High Court or Supreme Court had directed such an inquiry upon disclosure of a prima facie case in view of the Constitutional bench decision in State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 5 SCC 571. His contention however was that no approval of the Central Government had been taken for conducting the investigation against the petitioner which was mandated under section 6 A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act as the petitioner according to the learned counsel was an employee of the Central Government above the level of Joint Secretary. The correctness of this contention will be examined in a subsequent order.
(3.) ON 25.7.2012, the Counsel for the CBI had submitted before us that charge sheet against the petitioner was ready in the case (RC-220-2012-E0003) and as 90 days of the petitioner's detention would be over on 7.8.12, if the earlier order dated 28.6.2012 restraining the CBI from submitting the charge sheet was not vacated, the Counsel apprehended that the petitioner might be released on bail on the technical plea of violation of section 167 Cr.P.C. We had therefore by our order dated 25.7.12 left it open to the CBI to file the charge sheet, which act would be subject to any final decision of this Court. However despite the Court's order dated 25.7.12 allowing the CBI to file the charge sheet/ police report the petitioner was allowed to be released on bail on 8.8.2012, on the ground that the charge sheet had not been submitted within the stipulated period of 90 days. Neither was a charge sheet submitted before the Special CBI Court, nor was any information furnished by the investigating officer before the said Court that investigation by the CBI had been concluded in the concerned case (RC-220-2012-E0003), and that the charge sheet had been prepared, but the same had been forwarded to the Central Government for sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act). Expressing our regret on this state of affairs we had sought an explanation from the Additional Solicitor General in this regard by our order dated 16.8.2012.;