Disposed

Dhandapani v. the Vigilance Commissioner

Madras HC30 Apr 2021WA(MD)/903/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an inquiry notice issued by the Vigilance Commissioner against a petitioner Assistant Director. The High Court Bench held that Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply where the alleged offence lacks good faith or constitutes a crime by itself, citing recent High Court decisions and an Apex Court ruling. Since an FIR was already registered, the a

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; the order in W.P.(MD) No.5417 of 2020 is confirmed.

Dhandapani Vs the Vigilance Commissioner — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On 27.04.2021 30.04.2021

¶4

CORAM : The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶5

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶6

Dhandapani

¶7

.. Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Vigilance Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai.

¶10

The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai.

¶11

The Secretary,

¶12

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai.

¶13

The Director of Rural Development Department, Panangalmaligai, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶14

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police,

¶16

Southern Range,

¶17

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai.

¶18

The Inspector of Police,

¶19

Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy.

¶20

P. Karthick

¶21

Kandasamy .. Respondents/Respondents

¶22

PRAYER : Petition filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order, dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.5417 of 2020 and thereby allow the present Writ Appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/6

¶24

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶25

Prayer in WP(MD). 5417/ 2020 :

¶26

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to call for the records on the file of 7th respondent vide proceeding no.PE.No.11/2020/RDP/TR, dt 09/03/2020 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits .

¶27

For Appellant/ : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan Writ Petitioner

¶28

For Respondents/Respondents Mr.K.P.Krishna dass 1 to 7 Special Government Pleader

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

[Judgment of the Court was made by S. ANANTHI, J. ]

¶31

This writ appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner against the dismissal order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.5417 of 2020.

¶32

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking orders to call for the records in proceeding No.PE.No.11/ 2020 /RDP/ TR, dated 09.03.2020, on the file of the 7^th respondent and quash the same.

¶33

The petitioner is working as Assistant Director in Rural Development Department, Trichy District. According to the petitioner, there existed property dispute between him and his brother/9^th respondent herein and that the 8^th respondent, on the instigation of his friend 9^th respondent, had filed numerous complaints against him to various authorities. The 8^th respondent has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.30288 of 2019 before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for directing the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai, to take further action on the basis of the complaint, dated 15.07.2019 given by the 8^th respondent herein and that this Court, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has passed an order, dismissing the criminal original petition with a direction to the 8^th respondent to appear before the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and to lodge a detailed complaint along with relevant documents.

¶34

It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the orders of this Court, 8^th respondent has filed a detailed complaint before the 4^th respondent, who in turn, directed the District Collector, Trichy/5^th respondent herein to conduct enquiry, who in turn appointed a Joint Director of Rural Development/ Mahalir https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

2/6

¶36

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶37

Thittam, Trichy as Enquiry Officer, that the Enquiry Officer has issued a notice, dated 07.02.2020, and called for the entire service particulars and property statements of the petitioner, that he conducted enquiry and inspected the petitioner's village and that the enquiry was in final stage at the time of filing the above writ petition.

¶38

It is further case of the petitioner that when the above enquiry is about to attain finality, to the petitioner's shock and surprise, the 7^th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 09.03.2020, directing the petitioner to furnish the various particulars called for therein and that the said impugned proceeding is now under challenge.

¶39

6.The petitioner has raised two main grounds to sustain the above petition.

¶40

(i) During enquiry in Crl.O.P(MD)No.30288 of 2019, it was represented on behalf of the 2^nd respondent that the complaint received by them was forwarded to the 4^th respondent and that only after receiving the report from the 4^th respondent, further action will be taken. Thereafter only, this Court has passed an order, directing the 8^th respondent to give a detailed complaint to the 4^th respondent, that accordingly, a detailed complaint was given to the 4^th respondent, who in turn directed the 5^th respondent to conduct enquiry, who in turn appointed an Enquiry Officer and that when the enquiry was about to attain finality, the 7^th respondent has commenced preliminary enquiry and issued the impugned proceedings, which is very much against the order of this Court and that the initiation of de-nova enquiry and that too 20 days prior to the petitioner's superannuation is arbitrary and is not permissible and is very much against the order of this Court.

¶41

(ii) As per Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, the police officer has to get previous approval to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation, that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing had not obtained any previous approval from the Government to conduct any enquiry against the petitioner herein and that therefore, very initiation of enquiry proceedings is void.

¶42

As per order in Crl.OP(MD) No.30288 of 2019 the 8^th respondent preferred a complaint to 4^th respondent on 08.01.2020 regarding purchase of property which are disclosed to the Government and also not properly accounted for the same. After receiving the complaint, a preliminary case was registered on 02.03.2020 and investigated the matter. The First Information Report also registered in Cr.No.8 of 2020 for the offences under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶43

3/6

¶44

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶45

Investigation is also pending. Though the 5^th respondnt sent a report stating that the complaints against the petitioner were not proved, there is no bar or prohibition for the 2^nd respondent to pass an order for conducting enquiry. Further, 8^th respondent preferred the complaint to 4^th respondent and he has passed an order for enquiry.

¶46

The second objection of the appellant is that the enquiry of 2^nd respondent, without getting prior permission from the Government is invalid and illegal under Section 17(A) of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act. The ingredients of Section 17(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶47

“17 A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.

¶48

(1) No Police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval -

¶49

(a) in the case of person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connections with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

¶50

(b) in the case of person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the State, of that Government;

¶51

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his officer, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

¶52

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

¶53

Provided Further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this Section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one months.”

¶54

In the cae on hand, the complaint is not during discharge of his official duties. The First Information Report also registered for disproportionate assets.

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

4/6

¶57

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶58

The learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to the decisions of the Delhi High Court and Chhattisgarh High Court reported in 2019 (1) Crimes (HC) 726 (Devender Kumar Vs. CBI and (2020) 0 Supreme (CHH) 149, Sathish Pandey Vs. Union of India, has specifically held that Section 17(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be made applicable to those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an offence, appears on the face of it lacking in good faith. Considering the above provision and the above decision, it is cleat that Section 17 (A) has been inserted only to give protection to the honest officers, but when the act of a public servant amounts to or constitutes an offence by itself, prior sanction or approval from the Government would not be necessary. Viewing from this angle also, I hold that Section 17 (A) of Prevention of Corruption Act has no application to the case on hand. As already pointed out, since FIR has already been registered and is pending investigation, the relief sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous.

¶59

In the case of Ranjib Ranjan Vs. R.Vijayakumar, reported in 2015(1)SSC 513 , the Apex Court held that in paragraph No.18, “ while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges criminal misconduct such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharging of his official duties”.

¶60

In the case on hand, the First Information Report was registered against the appellant for disproportionate assets and investigation is pending. Therefore, Section 17(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is not applicable to the appellant. The learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly observed this point. The appellant/writ petitioner has to face the criminal case. This Court has no valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Writ Court.

¶61

In the result, the Writ appeal stands dismissed. The order, dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.5417 of 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is hereby confirmed. No Costs.

¶62

// True Copy //

¶63

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶64

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

5/6

¶66

W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021

¶67

ksa

¶68

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned . To 1. The Vigilance Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai. 2. The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai. 3. The Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Saint George Fort, Chennai. 4. The Director of Rural Development Department, Panangalmaligai, Saidapet, Chennai. 5. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai. 7. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy. +1 CC to SGP ( SR-18406[F] dated 03/05/2021 ) Judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 903 of 2021 30.04.2021

¶69

KM (17.05.2021) 6P 9C

¶70

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶71

6/6

Dhandapani v. the Vigilance Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhandapani v. the Vigilance Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Laksmana Perumal Vs the District Collector

C.Palaniyammal Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ganesan Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.Nagarajan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Director of Elementary Education, Vs a.Celastin Mahimairaj

G. Rajan Vs The Superintendent