Full Judgment Text
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 27 November, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 658/2017 and CM Nos. 7554, 46645, 46646. 47582/2018
MADANJIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Aakash Varma, Mr. Prajesh V.S.,
Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advs.
for R-1/UOI
Ms. Tatini Basu, Adv. for R-2/CVC
Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr. Shubhendu
Bhattacharyya, Advs. for R-3 and 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R
% 27.11.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 658/2017
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers :
“a) ISSUE a writ of MANDAMUS directing the
Respondent Nos. 1-2 to constitute high power committee to
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 1 of 12
inquire in to the affairs of the Respondent No. 3 and to
identify the real perpetrator of such financial and
administrative irregularities which caused huge losses to
the public exchequer especially in the light of the
inspection report of CAG for the years 2014-2016 under
the supervision of this Hon'ble Court
AND
b) ISSUE further MANDAMUS directing the Respondent
No. 1 and 2 to lodge appropriate proceedings against the
errant officials of the Respondent No. 3 for their illegal act
and misappropriation of public money which resulted in
huge financial loss to public exchequer which runs into
crores of Rupees.
c) ISSUE further MANDAMUS directing the Respondent
No. 1, 4 and 5 not to proceed with the sale of Respondent
No. 3.
d) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court
may deem in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interest of justice.”
2. Petitioner in person has pointed out that the Comptroller and
Auditor General’s report reveals various things against respondent no.3 as
well as about the working style of the respondent no.6. It is submitted by
the petitioner that even after receiving the report of the Comptroller and
Auditor General, nothing has been done by the respondents and therefore
petitioner is seeking a suitable direction for initiating appropriate actions
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 2 of 12
to be taken against the respondent nos. 3 and 6 in the light of the
aforesaid report.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 1 who has submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. It
is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that
the petitioner was transferred by the respondent no.3-company and his
writ petition challenging the same was dismissed. Moreover his appeal
against the aforesaid transfer order was also dismissed. Thereafter, these
allegations have been revealed against the respondent nos. 3 and 6 by this
petitioner. Later on, for the misconduct, this petitioner was dismissed
from the service against which he preferred a writ petition before this
Court. The W.P.(C) 7087/2016 as well as LPA 703/2016 against the
dismissal order have also been dismissed. It is further submitted by
counsel for the respondent no. 1 that all care has been taken of the
Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. Moreover, a Fact Finding
Committee was constituted in the light of the allegations revealed in one
th
magazine and the said Fact Finding Committee’s report dated 24
August, 2017 is also on record which was accepted by the concerned
Ministry of Science and Technology. The said report found that the
allegations leveled against respondent nos. 3 and 6 are not substantiated.
Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that
the company – respondent no.3 is now a profit making company.
Moreover, the performance assessment of the company is also found to
be “outstanding”. The company has also received awards for best
performance and best “Turnaround Strategy”. Furthermore, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the
allegations levelled against the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 6
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 3 of 12
who is the Chairman cum Managing Director of respondent no.3 are
found baseless after conducting adequate inquiry in this regard.
Moreover, the report given by a Multi-Members Fact Finding Committee
has also been accepted by the concerned department which has given a
clean chit to the Respondent Nos.3 and 6. There is an affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no.9 which essentially delineates the conclusion
th
of the said Fact Finding Committee report dated 24 August, 2017 (page
no. 704 of the memo of this writ petition).
4. Having heard the petitioner in person, it appears that going by the
Comptroller and Auditor General’s report for the years 2014-2016 and
the fact that no action has been initiated by the respondents pursuant to
said CAG report, the present petition has been preferred for constitution
of the High Power Committee to inquire into the affairs of the respondent
no.3 and to lodge appropriate proceedings against the errant officers of
the respondent no.3.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that
as per paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1,
“Best Turnaround Strategy Award” has been given to respondent no.3
and after the appointment of new CMD, it is constantly making profits.
For the ready reference, para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent no.1 reads as under :
“3. The petitioner has attempted to a paint of picture
of the respondent No.3-company going into losses on
account of financial irregularities in the recent years. The
actual position is exactly the opposite. The Respondent No.
3 which was making losses for many Years despite two
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 4 of 12
revival packages in the past in 1996 and 2006 has actually
turned around in the past four years, after appointment of
the new CMD, and is consistently making profits which are
rapidly increasing. It may also be significant to add that
the respondent no.3 company has also recently been
awarded the "Best Turnaround Strategy" award in the
Hindustan PSUs awards.
The improvement in the performance of CEL since
2013-14, is borne out from the following data :-
Year Sales Profit/(-)Loss Accumulated
Profit/(-)Loss
Rs/Lakhs Rs/Lakhs Rs/Lakhs
2012-13 19213.13 -241.23 -4915.41
2013-14 17205.09 314.64 -4606.86
2014-15 16829.34 496.45 -4200.46
2015-16 21117.59 1120.51 -3344.95
2016-17 (Est) 29500.00 2399.00 -1650.00
6. Furthermore, it appears from the facts of the case that there is an
internal audit, a statutory audit, a transaction audit and audit conducted by
the Board as stated by the respondent no.1 in their counter-affidavit.
Thus, the audit of respondent no.3 as required under the law has duly
been conducted. Moreover, the performance assessment of the respondent
no.3 is found to be outstanding. For the ready reference, paragraph no. 7
at page no. 298 reads as under :
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 5 of 12
“7. Contents of para 7 do not concern the answering
respondent and call for no comments. However, it may be
relevant to mention here that in case CAG has made any
comments with regard to the financial accounting
pertaining to CEL, the same are required to be responded
to by CEL to the CAG. It may also be added that whatever
comments or issues are raised by the CAG, the same are to
be taken to their logical conclusion by the CAG itself.
In so far as petitioner's allegations that he made some
quires into the financial affairs of the respondent no.3 and
filed various applications under the RTI Act, 2005, suffice
it to say that the petitioner does not have any locus standi
to make any such enquiries. There is a well established
system to ensure proper accounting and highest standards
of corporate governance in PSUs Including Internal audit,
Statutory Audit, Transaction Audits, CAG, Audit
Committee of the Board etc. It is also worth to mention
here that Respondent No. 3 Company has consistently been
rated as "Outstanding" in field of Corporate Governance
by the DPE (Department of Public Enterprises) since
joining of Respondent No 6 as CMD.
The contents of para 7 also clearly shows that the
present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner out of
vengeance. As submitted in the preliminary submissions
the present petition though titled as "PIL" has been filed
by the petitioner to settle his grudges against the
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 6 of 12
management of Respondent no.3 which had transferred the
petitioner to Chandigarh. Pertinently, the petitioner filed a
writ petition challenging his transfer before this Hon'ble
Court which was dismissed and thereafter even the LPA
filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. It is after
loosing the legal battle the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition making all sorts of untenable allegations,
without disclosing the fact of the mentioned writ petition
and LPA filed by him having is missed by this Hon'ble
Court.”
7. Further, it appears that for the allegations about the working style
of respondent no.3 and respondent no.6 which were revealed from one
magazine, a Fact Finding Committee was constituted by the Department
of Science and Technology with the following members :
“(i) Shri Birijeshwar Singh, IAS (Retd.), former Chairman,
National Highways Authority of India - Chairman
(ii) Shri K.P. Pandian, former JS & FA, Deptt. of Science
& Technology -Member
(iii) Ms. Manju Bagai, former Legal Advisor, CSIR –
Member
(iv) Shri K.R. Vaidheeswaran, JS, DSIR/CSIR - Member.”
8. Paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no. 9 reads as under:
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 7 of 12
4. In February, 2017 issue of the journal "TelecomLive"
magazine, certain allegations were made against the CEL
and its CMD, Dr.Nalin Shinghal. Complaint Ceil, Cabinet
Secretariat had also forwarded complaint against
Dr.Nalin Shinghal, CMD CEL vide OM
NO.501/I/08/2017-VCC dated 28.04.2017 (ANNEXURE-
III). A Fact Finding Committee (FFC) was constituted by
DSIR with the approval of Minister of Science &
Technology (ANNEXURE- IV). The FFC was chaired by
Shri Brijeswar Singh IAS(retired), former Chairman,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The other
members were Shri K.P.Pandian, former JS&FA,
Department of Science & Technology, Ms.Manju Bagai,
former Legal Advisor, Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research (CSIR) and Shri K.R.Vaidheeswaran, Joint
Secretary, CSIR/DSIR. The
FFC took oral deposition from Shri Anil Kumar, Editor-in-
Chief, TelecomLive magazine and also examined the
files/documents pertaining to the cases referred to in the
magazine article, including the allegations regarding
splitting of the order by CEL in UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam
to facilitate limited tender, BSF's Solar Power Project with
battery backup i.e., off-grid, BSF's Solar Power Project
Grid connected i.e., without battery, UP Police's Solar
Power Projects at 250 Police Stations and helper on
deputation working at CMD's residence. The FFC found
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 8 of 12
that the allegations against Dr.Nalin Shinghal, CMD, CEL
were NOT substantiated. Copy of the FFC report is at
ANNEXURE-V.
5. The FFC report was sent by this Department to the
Cabinet Secretariat for placing before the Group of
Officers (GOO) (ANNEXURE-VI). In response, the
Cabinet Secretariat vide its OM NO.501/I/15/2017-VCC
dated November, 2017 conveyed that Group noted the
specific reply of DSIR and decided not to pursue the
matter further (ANNEXURE-VII).”
9. The aforesaid Fact Finding Committee has gone into the details of
the allegations raised against respondent no.3 and respondent no.6 and
th
submitted a detailed report dated 24 August, 2017, which found that
allegations raised against respondent nos. 3 and 6 are not substantiated. It
is pertinent to note that allegations raised in this petition are exactly the
same which were placed before the said Fact Finding Committee for
inquiry.
10. The conclusion arrived at by the aforesaid Fact Finding Committee
is find place in paragraph no. 179 of the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent No.9 at page no. 704 of this petition which reads as under :
“179. (i) Allegation (I) regarding award of work on
nomination basis to the Channel Partner is NOT
substantiated. Moreover, CEL successfully completed the
work.
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 9 of 12
(ii) Allegation (II) regarding supply of material on credit
M/s Shanti Associates is NOT substantiated, but CEL
should do more to recover payments from its debtors.
(iii) As regards Allegation (III), CEL has not been
blacklisted by Railways. But CEL could not complete the
Orders placed by Railways and lost its security deposits.
CEL's selection of vendors was poor. However, blame does
not attached to CEL alone as Railways are also at fault.
RDSO (Railways) had issued
"Standards" as part of the tender conditions, when. RDSO
lacked laboratories to carry out testing for these
standards. To that extant the contract was void ab initio.
(iv) Allegation (IV) regarding appointment of consultants
by CEL flouting the rules is NOT substantiated.
(v) Allegation (V) regarding splitting of orders by CEL in
UPRNN case to facilitate limited tender is NOT
substantiated. GEL had followed its tender procedures.
Since there is no general debarring of CEL by Railways,
the question of CEL submitting a false certificate /Affidavit
does not arise.
(vi) Allegation (VI) regarding showing favour to
Samriddhi Automation by technical rejection of other
bidders is NOT substantiated as he was technically
qualified L1 bidder through a fair and transparent process
and the work was successfully Completed.
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 10 of 12
(vii) Allegation (VII) regarding harassment of
"Whistleblower" having a child with special needs, by
transferring him from Delhi in violation of DOPT
instructions, is NOT substantiated. Shri Madanjit Kumar
was not a "whistleblower" within the meaning of
'Whistleblowers Act' nor was DOPT instruction
applicable.
(viii) It is observed that the documents pertaining to the
Para of inspection report of CAG given in the
TelecomLIVE magazine in support of the allegations have
been obtained from the public domain and those given by
Shri Madanjit Kumar have largely bee obtained from CAG
through RTI, to which allegations of corruption have been
tagged on. The complaint is based on the inspection report
of CAG. As per the established procedure to deal with
CAG inspection report, it is being addressed by CEL
separately and replies I clarifications have been sent by
CEL to CAG.
(ix) On the basis of the examination of the documents
submitted by CEL and Shri Anil Kumar, Editor-in-Chief,
TelecomLIVE magazine, as brought out in this report, the
allegation of corruption against Dr. Nalin Shinghai, CMD,
CEL, is NOT substantiated.”
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Fact Finding Committee’s
th
conclusion given in their report dated 24 August, 2017, qua allegations
leveled against respondent nos.3 and 6, which are also overlapping with
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 11 of 12
the allegations levelled in this writ petition, we see no reason to further
monitor this case when the said report has been duly accepted by the
rd
concerned Ministry as per the communication dated 3 November, 2017.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the
Fact Finding Report as stated hereinabove, we hereby dispose of this writ
petition. Nonetheless, we hereby direct the respondents that in case of
any irregularity or any illegality is found in future, action will be taken by
the respondents against respondent no.3 or against erring officers of the
respondent no.3 in accordance with law, rules, regulations as per
Government policy applicable to the facts of the case and also after
giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties.
13. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CM Nos. 7554/2018, 46645/2018, 46646/2018 and 47582/2018
1. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all these applications
are also disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2019/ kr
W.P.(C) 658/2017 Page 12 of 12