Bhajani Ram Meena v. Union of India

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by thelearnedCentral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’) in O.A. No. 2113 of 2016, titled Shri Bhajhani Ram Meena, IPS v. Union of India & Ors., dismissing thesaid O.A. filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner hadfiled thesaid O.A. before the learned CAT challenging theorder dated 07.06.2016 appointingthe respondent NO. 5 as the Chief Vigilance Officer,South Delhi Municipal Corporation, as being contrary to paragraph 2.6.[1] of Chapter II of the CVC Vigilance Manual.

3. The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the learned CAT has failed to appreciate that in terms of paragraph 2.4.[3] of the Vigilance Manual (VolumeI) a panel of names of three officers was to be forwarded by the Ministry to the Central Vigilance Commission (‘Commission’) from whom the officer approved by the Commission for the post of CVO was to be appointed. He submits that in the present case,the nameof only respondent no.5 was forwarded by the concerned Ministry to the Commission for its approval, thereby violating the procedureprescribed in theVigilance Manual.

4. We do not findany merit in the submission made by the learned counselfor the petitioner. WP(C) 5387/2021 Page 3of 6

5. The respondentno. 1 in its reply filed to the said OA before the learned CAT had inter alia explained the procedure followed by it in makingappointment of respondentno. 5, as under:

6. That accordingly, the Respondent Ministry found that Sh. Mangesh Kashyap, DANIPS is the most suitable for the post of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in SDMC and recommended and forwarded his name to the Central Vigilance Commission for their concurrence vide letter No. 14016/20/2015- UTS-I, dated 6.4.2016. Para 2.4.[2] (vi) of CVC Vigilance Manual provides that the DoP&T or the Administrative Ministry/Department concerned would obtain specific approval in favour of an officer if the proposal is to appoint that officer as a CVO in any of 100 select organizations. SDMC is in the list of 100 select organizations (Annexure-R-3).”

6. Para 2.4.[2] (vi) of the Vigilance Manual Volume I reads as under: WP(C) 5387/2021 Page 5of 6 “2.4.[2] The following guidelines have been prescribed for filling up full-time posts of CVOs in the PSUs: xxxxx

(vi) The DOPT, or the administrative

Ministry/Department concerned, would obtain specific approval in favor of an officer in the proposal is to appoint that officer as a CVO in any of 100 select organisations.”

7. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is listed at Serial No. 92 of the ‘List of Select Organisationsfor which Specific Approval of the Commission for an Officer to be Appointed as CVO is Required’.

8. Paragraph 2.4.3is applicable to thePSUs which do not have full time post of CVOs. This is a general residualprovision. Paragraph 2.4.[2] (vi), however,applies in specific to the100 select organisations, including MCD. Thesaid procedure wouldtherefore,prevail over the general residual procedure prescribed in paragraph 2.4.3.

9. Admittedly,respondent no. 5 has been appointed after seeking such specific approvalfrom the Commission and is in accordance with Paragraph 2.4.2(vi) of theVigilance Manual and cannot be faulted on that account.