The Supreme Court on Tuesday took strong note of the proceedings initiated against a public officer, cautioning that allowing such action without adequate basis could demoralise honest officers and affect the functioning of the system. The bench remarked:
“
“Will you allow a single honest officer and a public-spirited officer to work in this country, if this kind of mischief is entertained?…they don’t touch the file, they don’t sign the file because of accountability, this issue, that issue and you completely demoralise them, the system will collapse.”
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the plea challenging a High Court order which had quashed a Lokpal order directing a CBI investigation into allegations concerning the conduct of a particular officer. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the preliminary enquiry had failed to examine several firms where the officer himself had signed papers and granted clearances, while examining other firms instead.
Counsel submitted that 29 firms were relevant to the complaint, but the preliminary enquiry allegedly placed only a “half-baked” report before the Lokpal without examining the firms identified by the petitioner. According to counsel, after the Lokpal issued notice, the petitioner supplied additional material, all parties were heard and the Lokpal passed a detailed order directing a CBI investigation.
“
“Out of the 29 firms, there are a number of firms in which this particular officer himself has signed the papers and agreed everything. Now what happens in the PE enquiry is that the firms which I have found out are not even looked into. Different firms are looked into and a half-baked PE report is placed before Lokpal. Lokpal then issues notice, I file additional material and all parties are heard and a detailed order is passed saying that there’s voluminous amount of material and, on the basis of that, Lokpal directs an investigation by the CBI.”
The counsel argued that the High Court had called for the entire material that was before the Lokpal in a sealed cover, but subsequently did not examine that material before quashing the Lokpal’s order, despite the Lokpal having recorded prima facie findings, according to the submissions.
He repeatedly sought a remand to the Lokpal, saying that if the respondents were dissatisfied with the Lokpal’s order, the matter could at least be sent back for fresh consideration.
Counsel also referred to alleged consequences faced by the petitioner after raising the allegations, including the arrest of his wife, who, he submitted, had a four-month-old daughter.
However, the Court appeared satisfied with the High Court’s decision to intervene in the matter. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.