Holding

The appointments of K.V. Chowdary as CVC and T.M. Bhasin as VC are valid as the High Power Committee’s decision was not tainted by extraneous considerations and complied with the statutory requirements.

Summary

The petitioners, including Common Cause, challenged the appointments of K.V. Chowdary as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on the ground that the selections violated the constitutional principles of impeccable and institutional integrity. They alleged that Chowdary had improper contacts with the then CBI Director, was involved in the Stock Guru and Flora & Fauna cases, and failed to act on HSBC and 2G investigations, while Bhasin was accused of fabricating an APAR for a bank official. The Court examined the material placed before the High Power Committee, including inputs from the CBI, IB, Department of Revenue and other agencies, and found the allegations unsubstantiated and the decision‑making process free of extraneous influence. It reiterated that judicial review is limited to the legality of the process, not the merits of the choice, and that the government is not accountable for the selection once statutory qualifications are met. Consequently, the Court held that both appointments were lawful and could not be set aside.

Issues considered

The legality of the appointment of K.V. Chowdary as CVC under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
The legality of the appointment of T.M. Bhasin as VC under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
Whether the High Power Committee’s decision was influenced by extraneous considerations or breached statutory provisions.
Whether the court can intervene in the substantive choice of candidates under Article 32.

Legislation cited

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003s. 3(3), s. 4(1), s. 5(1), s. 6, s. 9(4)
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 119
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 182
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2)

Subjects

Central Vigilance CommissionCVC appointmentVC appointmentjudicial reviewintegrity of officehigh power committeeextraneous considerationspublic interest litigationselection process

Judgment

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 901 901

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505 of 2015)
B
JULY 02, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Judicial Review:
Writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution – Challenging C
appointment of respondent No. 2 as Central Vigilance Commissioner
(CVC) and of respondent No. 3 as Vigilance Commissioner (VC)
– Seeking quashing of the appointments on the ground that it were
illegal and void being violative of the principles of ‘impeccable
integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ – Held: Judicial determination
is confined to the integrity of the decision making process – If the D
decision is influenced by extraneous considerations or selection is
made in breach of the statute or rules, it can be set aside – It is not
for the Court to decide on the choice – Government is not
accountable to the courts for the choice made – Government is
accountable to the Courts in respect of lawfulness/legality of its E
decision – In the present case, the decision to appoint respondent
No. 2 cannot be said to be influenced by extraneous considerations,
and choice of respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be such which is
amenable for interference by the Court in judicial review – Also no
case is made out with respect to appointment of respondent No. 3 to
make interference in judicial review – Constitution of India – Art. 32. F
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is alleged against respondent No.2 that he
had met Mr. Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director on 29.12.2013 and
20.4.2014 for 15 minutes on earlier occasions and 8 minutes on a G
later date. When the meetings were held, respondent No.2 was
probing the interception dealings of Hawala dealer Mr. Moin
Qureshi. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, was investigating Stock
Guru scam where senior income tax officers were involved in
which Mr. Sinha was investigating the role of respondent No.2.
It was usual to meet for Heads of various investigating agencies H
901
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A in connection with official work. There being no other material to
substantiate aforesaid aspersions it is simpliciter an assumption
that the meetings took place with an evil design. The highest
officers might have discussed the other issues. There is no other
supporting material to substantiate the aforesaid aspersions. How
the help was extended, in what manner and in Stock Guru scam
B
there was no allegation against respondent No.2 in any manner
whatsoever. Thus, it is far-fetched to urge that the aforesaid
meetings were to extend help to each other. [Paras 66, 69][939-
G-H; 941-D-E]
1.2 With respect to Stock Guru, the investigation was made
C not by respondent No.2 but by Deputy Director of Income-tax
(Investigation) and under Additional Director of Investigation,
reporting to Director of Investigation, Investigation-II, Delhi,
who in turn reported to the respondent, the then Additional D.G.
(IG) Investigation, Delhi. Such conduct on 6.2.2012 led to a
D seizure of Rs.34.96 crores in cash. Initially, there was a complaint
by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal (who had nothing to do with this case)
that the cash belonged to various depositors and it should not
have been seized. On a case filed, the amount was deposited in
court as per the order passed by the court. Appraisal report was
prepared by the I.O. and sent to assessing officer who initiated
E assessment proceedings. However, on 3.6.2013 the CBI started
an investigation into the conduct of the then I.O. of Stock Guru.
The name of respondent No.2 did not figure in the First
Information Report filed by the CBI. No wrongdoing, no
shortcoming was found by any authority in the action of respondent
F No.2 when 13 allegations were made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal
against respondent No.2. The CVC, Department of Revenue and
Department of CBDT got the issues enquired and allegations
were found to be baseless. [Para 70][941-F-H; 942-A-B]
1.3 With respect to the allegations made by Mr. Anil Kumar
G Agrawal, it was clear that since he was criminally prosecuted under
section 182 IPC and disciplinary proceedings, had been initiated
against him by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India at
the instance of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had deposed
against him in the criminal case in the court and once upon time
Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal had appreciated the gesture of
H respondent No.2 it was clearly an afterthought for him to level
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 903

the allegations which were without any supporting material and A
had never been substantiated by any material. In the newspaper
report dated 15.4.2014 name of respondent No.2 was not
mentioned, no supervisory failure was attributed. Respondent
No.2 was not subjected to an investigation by the CBI. Thus, the
aforesaid cast of aspersions upon respondent No.2 by the
B
petitioners has no basis. Same is not substantiated by any material.
[Para 71][942-C-E]
1.4 File No.245/32/2015-AVD.II has been produced which
contains the answers of CBI with respect to various queries made
which were on the basis of the complaint. It has been mentioned
that the CBI has investigated the relevant case during the tenure C
of Mr. Ranjit Sinha in the Stock Guru scam on the basis of a
complaint received from E.O.W., Delhi Police, relating to demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification from Mr. Ulhas Prabhakar
of M/s. Stock Guru by Mr. Yogender Mittal (IRS-2006), ADIT to
help him in the income-tax case. The investigation did not reveal D
the involvement of respondent No.2. It was also noted that nothing
came to the notice of CBI against respondent No.2. [Para 72][942-
F-G]
1.5 Another aspersion on the integrity cast is relating to a
search conducted by criminal investigation division of income- E
tax on Ponty Chadha group M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd. on 1.2.2012. It was alleged that
respondent No.2 abused his position to under-assess the income
of the said company by an amount of Rs.234 crores. It was alleged
that he issued a direction to the assessing officer to dispose of
the case in a particular manner which could not have been done F
in view of section 119 of the Income Tax Act and judgment of this
Court. Respondent No.2 agreed with the conclusion of the
aforesaid officers. In that matter, respondent No.2 had not taken
any decision. The decision was taken by the Assessing Officer
and the Additional Commissioner in whom the power vested. As G
the matter was to be decided as per law the assessing officer
came to the conclusion that there was no case for addition and
passed an order under the Income Tax Act with the approval of
the Additional Commissioner. In a meeting held on 22.3.2014,
DCIT (Assessing Officer), the Additional Commissioner and Chief
Commissioner apprised respondent No.2, Member H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A (Investigation) that they were of the view that no addition of
Rs.234 crores was warranted as there was no evidence to suggest
much less to prove that an accounted sale to that extent took
place in the span of 21 days from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011. Thus the
facts make it clear that no impropriety has been committed by
respondent No.2 and he has not directed the assessing officer to
B
proceed in a particular manner but rather various higher
authorities had agreed with the assessing officer and thereafter
had put up the matter for discussion with the respondent who
had also agreed with them. In the facts of the case, it is clear that
the allegation raised with respect to favour being meted out to
C M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing & Land Development (P) Ltd. at
the instance of respondent No.2 has been considered by HSBC
and not at all substantiated from the material on record. As a
matter of fact, full facts have not been placed on record either by
Mr. Anil Agrawal or otherwise to make the position clear. It is
apparent that Mr. Anil Agrawal was making reckless allegations
D
and was guilty of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi. [Paras 73, 75
and 77][942-H; 943-A, E-H; 944-H; 945-A-C]
1.6 Another allegation against respondent No.2 was with
respect to the failure of respondent No.2 to take appropriate
action against the foreign bank account holders in HSBC Bank,
E Geneva for almost 3 years. It was urged that no prompt action
was taken by respondent No.2. Since the formation of SIT the
income tax department had not filed even a single prosecution
against HSBC account holders. The allegation is not at all
substantiated. Rather his functioning has been appreciated by
F the SIT and his assistance has been sought even by the Chief
Vigilance Commissioner. [Paras 78, 80][945-D-E; 947-A]
1.7 Another allegation against respondent No.2 is with
respect to the failure to make any headway, as he failed to take
action in the income-tax cases, in the 2G scam, unlike the CBI or
G Enforcement Directorate filed several charge-sheets. The
averment in this regard in the petition is in the passing form and
is vague. Apart from that, no specific instance has been given in
which case there was a failure on the part of respondent No.2.
That apart respondent No.2 had made it clear that during the
tenure from 1.11.2010 to August 2012 he had taken up the case
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 905

of Unitech Ltd. whose associates and their sister concern had A
been granted licences and few other cases of telecom company
were investigated and few connected cases of telecom companies
were also under investigation for other charges. All necessary
investigation was carried out and aforesaid findings were
communicated in due time to the Assessing Officer who took
B
appropriate action. Cases of other telecom companies under the
jurisdiction of DGIT, Bombay, Chennai, Bengaluru etc.
Respondent No.2 as a nodal agency coordinated and made several
representations as to the action taken by the income-tax
department before a Joint Parliamentary Committee. It could not
be pointed out in which particular matter respondent No.2 was C
found lacking. It was never pointed out to this Court that there
was laxity on the part of respondent No.2 when the aforesaid
matter C.A. No.10660/2010 was listed in this Court. [Para
81][947-B-F]
1.8 The allegation with respect to Radia Tapes, is that D
respondent No.2 not taking action against the concerned
incumbents. Details of action which were required and could have
been taken have not been given in the petition, thus no specific
averment has been made in this regard by the petitioners. It is
apparent from the reply that respondent No.2 was DGIT
Investigation and he joined on 1.11.2010 by which time E
surveillance of Ms. Nira Radia was over and some intercepts
relating to such surveillance were in public domain due to leakage
probably in May-June, 2010. When he had taken over as DGIT
(Investigation) in November 2010 actionable issues were
identified and necessary action was taken either by the Delhi F
Directorate or was communicated to the Directorates for further
action. The information was duly shared with the Assessing
Officers and other law enforcing agencies such as CBI, ED etc.
The matter was before this Court in Public Interest Litigation
(PIL). None of the authorities ever found any shortcoming or
inaction on the part of respondent No.2 on this count. It was also G
not urged before the Court by aforesaid PIL of 2010 whenever it
was listed. [Para 82][947-G-H; 948-A-B]
1.9 It has also been pointed out by respondent No.2 that in
the petition with respect to APAR of respondent No.2, false
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A averments have been made, that adverse remarks were made by
three senior officers of CBDT. The allegation has been termed
to be baseless and unfounded and misleading. In the 36 years of
service, not even a single remark has been made in the APAR.
All the remarks had been based on record as in the form of
compendium R-2/1. There is no adverse remark in them. Thus
B
the petition suffers from wrong averments also. Thus, it is
apparent that against respondent No.2 unsubstantiated allegations
have been made. [Para 83][948-C-D]
1.10 Three representations/complaints were received
against respondent No. 2. The PMO had asked for details of the
C allegations so as to ascertain the facts contained in the
representations filed against respondent No.2. Complaints of
respondent No.2 were placed before the Committee. Factual
inputs on opinion were received with respect to the various
aspects in representation from various agencies like CBI,
D Information Bureau, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
and were placed before the HPC which considered all the
allegations against all shortlisted candidates. No complaint was
received against respondent No. 3. Requisite clearances were
given by the IB with respect to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With
respect to the allegations, separate inputs were obtained and
E placed before the Committee. There was nothing adverse found.
[Para 87][951-C-E]
1.11 Each and every aspect and information had been placed
before the High Power Committee when the decision was taken.
Thus, the integrity of the decision-making process has not
F impinged in this case in any manner whatsoever. Nor the decision
taken to appoint respondent No.2 as CVC, can be said to be
suffering from any illegality. The decision cannot be said to be
influenced by extraneous considerations and the choice made of
respondent No.2 cannot be said to be such which is amenable for
G interference by the court in judicial review. [Para 104][955-B-C]
2.1 With respect to the appointment of respondent No.3,
that since it was alleged that on the administrative side, he was
severely indicted for fabricating/forging the APAR of Mr. Malay
Mukherjee, General Manager and was cautioned. However, his
H criminal prosecution ultimately was not fructified. Thus, in view
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 907

of the order passed in the serious background, it could not be A
said that person who was accused of fabricating/forging APAR
was a person of impeccable integrity fit to hold the office of
Vigilance Commissioner of an integrity institution of this country.
Respondent No. 3 in his written explanation pointed out that in
the past there were 14 such cases when succeeding CMDs, had
B
submitted APAR when reviewing APAR when officers have not
worked under him. Thus no action against him was warranted.
He had not violated any guidelines. [Paras 105, 109][955-D-E;
956-F-G]
2.2 So far as fabrication and forgery are concerned, no
finding has been recorded against respondent No.3 with respect C
to the APAR for 2009-2010 by any formal order on the
administrative side. Thus, his integrity is not going to be affected
in the aforesaid factual matrix. [Para 111][958-B]
2.3 There is no finding recorded against respondent No.3
either by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner or the DFS in any D
manner whatsoever so as to impinge adversely upon his integrity,
necessary for such an institution of Vigilance Commission. Apart
from that, no representation was filed against respondent No.3.
However, this aspect was dealt with and was mentioned in the
report which was submitted before the HPC. Thus, there was E
nothing against the integrity of respondent No.3 so as to hold
that the recommendation with respect to him was illegal and void
and entire material was placed before the HPC. Thus, no case is
made out with respect to the appointment of respondent No.3 as
Vigilance Commissioner to make interference in judicial
parameters. [Paras 111, 112][958-C-D, F] F

3. Judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the
decision making process by the HPC. The difference between
judicial and merit review, the legality of decision-making process
can also be looked into. If the decision is influenced by extraneous
considerations or selection is made in breach of the statute or G
rules, it can be set aside. The Government is not accountable to
the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable
to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions.
[Para 85][950-F, G]
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A 4. It is not for this Court to decide on the choice. Nowadays
the scenario is that such complaints cannot be taken on face value.
Even against very honest persons, allegations can be made. Those
days have gone when filing of the complaints was taken as serious
aspersions on integrity. Ideally, there should not be any serious
complaint as the filing of same raises eyebrows. As in the instant
B
matter, complaints have been looked into and the Court declines
to interfere. [Para 113][958-G-H]
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1
SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595; Centre for PIL
& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 1 : [2011]
C 4 SCR 445; K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala (2000)
3 SCC 761 : [2000] 2 SCR 735 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 referred to Para 1
D [2011] 4 SCR 445 referred to Para 1
[2000] 2 SCR 735 referred to Para 86
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 505
of 2015.
E Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
W.P. (C) No. 683 of 2014.
Pramod Dayal, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha
F Rathi, Ms. Cheryl D’ Souza, Advs. for the Petitioners.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mrs. V. Mohana,
C. A. Sundaram, P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ms. Madhavi Divan,
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ms. Binu Tamta, B. V. Balramdas, Ms. Anil Katiyar,
Shekhar Kumar, Braj Kishore Mishra, Rajat Nair, Ms. Shradha
G Deshmukh, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan
Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Ms. Filza Moonis, K. V. Girish
Choudhary, Ms. Rohini Musa, Zafar Inayat, Abhishek Gupta, Apporv
Tripthi, Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora, Anuvrat Sharma,
Ms. Sushma Suri, Advs. for the Respondents.

H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 909

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The petition has been filed by the
Common Cause (a registered Society) and others purportedly in public
interest, a prayer has been made to issue an appropriate writ quashing
the appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, Central Vigilance Commissioner
(in short ‘CVC’) and Mr. T.M. Bhasin, Vigilance Commissioner (in short, B
‘VC’). The Union of India had appointed Mr. K.V. Chowdary as CVC
on 6.6.2015 and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as VC on 11.6.2015 for a period of
four years. The main ground urged to quash the appointment is that it is
illegal and void as there is violation of principles of impeccable integrity
and institutional integrity laid down in the judgments of this Court in
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226 and C
Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 1.
2. In the writ petition filed by the Centre for Integrity, Governance,
and Training in Vigilance Administration and another, a prayer has been
made to direct the Union of India and/or its instrumentalities to provide
for minimum number of years of knowledge and experience in the field D
of vigilance for being appointed as CVC or VC. During the pendency of
the writ application, with the permission of the court, this Court had
permitted respondent No.1 to proceed with the appointment of CVC
and VC under section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act,
2003 (for short, “the Act”) subject to the decision of the petition. The E
appointments have been made and the challenge is confined to the
appointments of CVC and VC.
3. It is urged by the Common Cause Society that Central Vigilance
Commission is, in the absence of a Lokpal, India’s top anti-corruption
body. The Commission is considered the apex integrity and watchdog F
institution of the country. Apart from overseeing the vigilance
administration, it has also the power of superintendence over the CBI in
corruption cases and is also the designated agency for protection of the
whistle-blowers to examine their complaints. It oversees functioning of
the Central Government and its instrumentalities.
G
4. This Court in Vineet Narain (supra) has observed that Central
Vigilance Commission shall be given statutory status. The Selection
Committee has to select a person of impeccable integrity and the
appointment shall be made by the President. Pursuant thereto, Parliament
has enacted Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and Selection
H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A Committee comprises of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the
Leader of the Opposition.
5. In Centre for PIL (supra) this Court had quashed the
appointment of the then CVC by declaring decision of Selection
Committee to the President for appointment as non-est. It was observed
B by this Court that the activity of decision making process has to ensure
that the powers are exercised for the purpose and in the manner in
which the said Act provides otherwise the recommendation has no
existence in the eyes of law. This Court directed that the legality of the
exercise of selection is subject to judicial review. All civil servants and
other persons empaneled shall be outstanding civil servants or persons
C of impeccable integrity, made on rational criteria reflected by recording
vigilance and/or notings akin to reasons. Complete information with
material and data whether favourable or adverse has to be forwarded.
Nothing material or relevant should be withheld. Contemporaneous service
record, even adverse remarks, are specifically to be brought to the notice
D of Selection Committee. Process of selection by the Committee has to
be fair and transparent.
6. It is averred in the petition that the absolute requirement is that
Central Vigilance Officer should have unblemished record of service.
The appointment of Mr. K.V. Chowdary, respondent No.2 as CVC has
E been assailed on the basis of facts mentioned in the complaint. Prior to
that, he was the Chairperson of CBDT and Advisor to the SIT on black
money. Before his appointment, several representations were made to
the Prime Minister of India, who heads the selection panel as provided
in section 4 of the Act. As it transpired that the Government had made
up its mind to appoint respondent No.2, representations were made giving
F specific reasons as to why he was not eligible and suitable for heading
the Commission. Despite representations, his appointment had been made.
Firstly, it is submitted that Mr. K.V. Chowdary had been meeting with
the then CBI Director Mr. Ranjit Sinha and had been regularly meeting
the accused in the cases investigated by the CBI in the 2G scam cases.
G This Court had directed on 20.11.2015 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010,
the CBI Director not to interfere in the investigation process carried out
by the CBI in the 2G scam case and to recuse himself from 2G scam
case. This Court had also observed in the judgment dated 14.5.2015 in
Writ Petition [C] No.463 of 2012 that Mr. Ranjit Sinha’s meetings with
accused in coal scam were completely inappropriate, and his role in
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 911
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

allegedly scuttling investigations in coal scam case needs to be A
investigated.
7. It is further averred in the petition that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director
of CBI met Mr. K.V. Chowdary when he was probing the dealings of
and intercepted conversation of hawala dealer Mr. Moin Qureshi who
was known to Mr. Ranjit Sinha and who had met him approximately 90 B
times at his residence. These meetings also took place when Mr. Ranjit
Sinha/CBI was investigating “Stock Guru Scam” where senior income
tax officers were involved and the CBI was investigating the role of
respondent No.2. The CBI inquiry had found that senior income tax
officer had taken bribes for showing favours to scamsters and had also
misappropriated over Rs.40 crores. The officers who were involved C
were working directly under Mr. K.V. Chowdary, respondent No.2.
8. The Income Tax Department in its report on Mr. Moin Qureshi
gave a clean chit to Mr. Sinha and CBI gave a clean chit to respondent
No.2 in Stock Guru scam. Thus, respondent No.2 Mr. K.V. Chowdary
and CBI Director, Mr. Ranjit Sinha helped each other in the investigation D
being carried out by the agencies under them.
9. One Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal had made a complaint to the
Finance Ministry on 10.6.2014 pointing out the manner in which
respondent No.2 was being shielded in Stock Guru scam. Earlier
respondent No.2 had taken credit for taking action against Stock Guru E
before the scam involving income tax officers came to light. He could
not distance himself from the scam as the entire episode happened under
his watch.
10. Respondent No.2 had abused his position as Member
(Investigation), CBDT to under-assess the income of the company M/s. F
Flora and Fauna Housing & Land Development Pvt. Ltd. which is
associated with infamous Mr. Ponty Chadha. The under-assessment
was to the extent of Rs.234/- crores. Mr. K.V. Chowdary followed a
procedure allegedly unknown to law by giving direction to the assessing
officer to dispose of the case in a particular manner whereas no such G
direction could have been issued.
11. It is further averred in the petition that one of the members of
the Common Cause Society made the following allegations in the
representation :
H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A (i) that Mr. Chowdary was in charge of the investigation of illegal
account holders in foreign countries in HSBC Bank, for almost
three years and until this Court appointed the SIT on black money,
there was almost no progress in income tax investigation, and the
income tax department had not filed even a single prosecution
case against HSBC account holders.
B
(ii) that Mr. Chowdary was investigating the Radia tapes and did
not take any action on evidence available with him.
(iii) that he was also investigating the income tax cases in the 2G
scam and failed to take any action unlike the CBI or the ED
C which filed several charge-sheets.
12. As against respondent No.3, Mr. T.M. Bhasin appointed as
VC the case set up by the petitioner is that he had been serving as the
CMD in the public sector Indian Bank from 1.4.2010 with its headquarters
in Chennai, who was indicted in a detailed inquiry by the CVC in 2013
D for forging and tampering with the appraisal report of the then General
Manager of Indian Bank which is a criminal offence. One Mr. Malay
Mukherjee in this connection had complained on 11.7.2011 that his Annual
Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) has been tampered. It was found
by the Commission that APAR was mala fidely tampered and forged
and grading of ‘excellent’ was substituted by ‘average’ with a view to
E destroy the career of Mr. Malay Mukherjee. It was a criminal offence
for which investigation was suggested to establish the facts. However,
another VC had stated that departmental action be taken. The then CVC
approved departmental action. On that office memorandum dated
11.12.2012 was issued to Department of Financial Services (DFS),
F Government of India to take departmental action against Mr. Bhasin.
13. In response to the aforesaid, the Department of Financial
Services wrote to the Commission that departmental action may not
stand scrutiny of law. The opinion was reiterated by the then VC which
was approved by the CVC, however, Department of Financial Services
G said that the matter ought to be closed and Mr. Bhasin was cautioned.
The same was approved by the Commission and was carried out by the
Government of India. It is averred that yet another important political
functionary wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on 11.6.2015 stating that
charge against Mr. Bhasin was very serious and the recommendation of
Selection Committee to appoint him must be withdrawn. Thus, Mr. Bhasin
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 913
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

by no stretch of imagination can be said to have impeccable integrity or A
unblemished record as per the requirement of law. Thus, the appointments
are illegal, arbitrary, in negation of rule of law and therefore in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that
transparency was not followed and there was no scope for public inputs.
Complaints made against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not duly
B
considered. Thus, transparency was not observed. Non-production of
serious adverse material and representations against respondent Nos. 2
and 3 would vitiate the appointment process and in case material was
produced, and despite that appointments were made, then the
appointments would be mala fide, arbitrary and illegal.
14. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 in case of C
Common Cause, as per section 3(3) of the Act, for appointment to the
post of CVC as well as VC, the person must have knowledge and
experience in the matters relating to (a) vigilance, (b) policy making and
(c) administration including police administration. Therefore, fixing
minimum years of experience exclusively in any of the above fields would D
be contrary to the expressed legislative intent which requires that such
person must have knowledge and experience in all the three fields. The
decision of this Court in Centre for PIL (supra) has been relied upon.
The guidelines laid down therein have been duly complied with. The
guidelines framed provided the criteria as well as the procedure to be
followed, inviting nominations, shortlisting of eligible candidates, final E
selection, to be made by the Committee. The vacancies inviting
applications for the posts of CVC and VC were issued by respondent
No.1 vide O.M. dated 13.10.2014. It was uploaded on the website of
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) and the advertisement
published in newspapers also referred to the vacancy circular. The F
process adopted by respondent No.1 included inviting applications through
advertisement from all eligible persons, thereafter scrutiny and sorting
of the applications under a welldefined criterion was done by a Committee
of Secretaries and, thereafter, the list was furnished to the Committee
as provided in section 4 of the Act. A fully transparent process had been
adopted. Office Memorandum dated 13.10.2014 has prescribed eligibility G
and other requirements as under:
“Section 3(3) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003,
provides that the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance
Commissioners shall be appointed from amongst persons -
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A (a) who have been or are in an All-India Service or in any civil
service of the Union or in a civil post under the Union having
knowledge and experience in the matters relating to vigilance,
policy making and administration including police administration;
or
B (b) who have held office or are holding office in a corporation
established by or under any Central Act or a Government company
owned or controlled by the Central Government and persons who
have expertise and experience in finance including insurance and
banking, law, vigilance, and investigations :
C Provided that, from amongst the Central Vigilance
Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners, not more than
two persons shall belong to the category of persons referred
to either in clause (a) or clause (b).
In case of persons falling under section 3(3)(a) of the Act as
D above, such persons, preferably, have held or is holding the
post of a Secretary to the Government of India or any equivalent
post thereto under the Central Government.
In case of persons falling under the first part of section 3(3)
(b) of the Act as above, the person must have held or is holding
E the position of Chairman/Managing Director/Chief Executive
Officer of a Schedule. “A” Central Public Sector Enterprise
and has served as a whole time Director on the Board for a
period of at least 3 years.
In respect of persons who have expertise and experience in
F finance, including insurance and banking, law, vigilance and
investigation and falling under the second part of section 3(3)
(b) of the Act as above, such persons must have acquired
eminence and have outstanding achievement in the said fields(s)
provided that such persons who are in employment in a private
company must have held or is holding the position of Managing
G Director/CEO, as a Whole-Time Director on the Board of the
Company for a period of at least three years.
All the applicants should be of outstanding merit and impeccable
integrity and should have knowledge and at least 25 years of
experience in the relevant field(s).
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 915
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

The applicants should not be more than 62 years of age as on A
1st January 2015 so that the persons to be considered for
selection will get at least 3 years tenure as a Central Vigilance
Commissioner or the Vigilance Commissioner.”
15. Experience of 25 years has been prescribed in the relevant
field(s). Advertisements were published in three leading newspapers, B
i.e., Times of India, The Hindu, and Dainik Bhaskar (Hindi Daily) in all
their editions in India on 14.10.2014 inviting applications for the aforesaid
posts. The last date of receiving the applications was 5.11.2014. It was
also uploaded on the website ‘www.persmin.nic.in’ by DoPT. The
publication has been certified as per the communication received from
the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), Ministry of C
Information & Broadcasting, it has been placed on record. Multiple
channels of communication were utilised to give wide publicity to the
advertisement.
16. Pursuant to the advertisement, total 132 applications were
received for the said posts, out of which 120 were received by the cut- D
off date. Following is the data of the applications received :

S.No. Under Category of No. of No. of No. of
the CVC Act, 2003 applicat ions applications applications
received for received for received after E
CVC post VC post 5.11.2014

1. 3(3)(a) 48 43 08

2. 3(3) (b) category - I 05 19 02

3. 3(3) (b) category - II 03 02 02
F
56 64 02

Total 132

The shortlisting was done by a Committee comprising of the Cabinet
Secretary, the Secretary (Department of Financial Services) and the G
Secretary (Personnel). In the meeting dated 9.4.2015, the Committee
went through the relevant record, scrutinized all the applications and
examined the experience of each candidate and shortlisted a panel of 12
names for the post of CVC and 10 names for the post of VC for placing
before Selection Committee for consideration.
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A 17.It is further contended by respondent No.1 that the first meeting
of the Committee headed by the Prime Minister was held on 23.5.2015
which was attended by the Home Minister and the leader of Congress
Legislative Party. The Committee went through agenda containing the
details, notwithstanding the shortlisting of details of all the 132 applicants
and decided to obtain further information of certain candidates.
B
18. On 23.5.2015, a communication was received from the PMO
containing extracts of all allegations from a representation made by one
of the members of the Common Cause vide his letter dated 20.5.2015
and requesting for inputs on the said allegations against Mr. K.V.
Chowdary. The same was sent on 25.5.2015 to CBI and the Department
C of Revenue for their inputs. The PMO also requested the IB on 23.5.2015
to provide their inputs. The following replies were received :
“(i) The reply of CBI was received on 29.05.2015 and is part of
the record that was placed before the Committee.
D (ii) Two replies were received from the Department of Revenue
on 27.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed before
the Committee.
(iii) Inputs from IB were received in PMO on 26.05.2015 and in
DoPT on 28.05.2015 and is part of the record that was placed
E before the Committee.
(iv) A reply on ACR was received on 29.05.2015 and is part of
the record that was placed before the Committee.”
19. The Agenda note for the second meeting to be held on 1.6.2015
was circulated on 27.5.2015 which included the details of all complaints
F against various candidates including the closed complaints. With respect
to Mr. K.V. Chowdary, it was mentioned in the agenda note that other
inputs will be placed before the Committee during the meeting as some
inputs were awaited. Accordingly, additional inputs with the gist of the
complaints regarding Mr. K.V. Chowdary were placed before the
Committee in the second meeting held on 1.6.2015. The gist with
G
annexures at correspondence containing plethora of documents of File
No.399/15/2014-AVD-III was made available. Not only the complaints/
documents but a brief summary of the complaints and the inputs obtained
from various agencies including the gist of the note for Mr. K.V.
Chowdary were also placed before the Committee. The gist included
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 917
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the details and the inputs received from various agencies like CBI, IB, A
and Department of Revenue. On 1.6.2015 a letter from the Department
of Revenue was received stating that no adverse remarks have been
found in the Appraisal Performance Report of available ACRs. of Mr.
K.V. Chowdary for the period from 1978 to 2013-14. Letter dated
26.5.2015 of another public functionary regarding Mr. K.V. Chowdary
B
was also placed before the Committee.
20. It is further contended that the details of the complaints
including the closed complaints against Mr. T.M. Bhasin along with inputs
in relation to the same were also part of the agenda at para 3.7 and
Annexure E which was placed before the Committee. The Committee
after taking into consideration all the material placed before it recorded C
thus:
“The representations received from Shri Prashant Bhushan, Anil
Kumar Agrawal and Shri Ram Jethmalani relating to Shri K.V.
Chowdary had been sent earlier to Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Intelligence Bureau, and the CBI for their D
comments. The above letters and comments of the agencies
concerned were placed before the Committee. Another complaint
received by the CBI relates to the case of M/s. Flora and Fauna
Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. about an unaccounted
income of Rs.234 crores. This was also a part of the complaint E
made by Shri Prashant Bhushan and based on the investigation
inputs received, the matter was found to be unsubstantiated.
Having considered the contents of the letters and the comments
thereon, the Committee was of the view that the allegations were
not substantiated.”
F
21. The file was sent to the Hon. President of India through
MOS(PP) and then by the PMO on 5.6.2015 containing the agenda as
well as the gist of the complaints which was received from the President’s
Secretariat on 8.6.2015 along with the Warrants of Appointment and
order of oath. After obtaining their consent, the Warrants of Appointment
were handed over personally to both Mr. K.V.Chowdary and Mr. G
T.M.Bhasin and the order on oath was also sent to CVC on 8.6.2015.
The decision taken by the Committee to appoint them was unanimous.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were found to be eligible. Allegations were not
found substantiated. The Committee had taken note of inputs received
from various investigation and intelligence agencies and after satisfying H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A themselves the allegations were found untenable and that they were the
persons of impeccable integrity and satisfied the requirement of law,
had recommended the appointments. There was no procedural irregularity
or illegality. The present petition is in no manner public interest litigation.
Complaints were baseless. There was no illegality or arbitrariness in
their appointments.
B
22. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, Mr. K.V.
Chowdary, it is contended that petition is based upon hearsay and letters
written by third parties. The decision in P.J. Thomas case does not apply.
In the case of P.J. Thomas incriminating material against him was not
placed before the High Power Committee (HPC) and as such this Court
C had made interference. Mr. P.J. Thomas was accused of an offence
under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (for short, “PC Act”) and section 120B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). The Charge-sheet was filed before the
Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The definite role was attributed to
D him and there were several allegations made against him. A note was
put up for holding a departmental inquiry for imposing a major penalty.
The Central Vigilance Commission had sent the opinion to initiate major
penalty proceedings against Mr. P.J. Thomas and another. The High
Court of Kerala in its judgment had also alleged the role of Mr. P.J.
Thomas in Palmolein case. The action of the State Government for
E initiating criminal case or pendency of the case or penalty before Special
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram was never questioned or challenged by Mr.
Thomas before any court of competent jurisdiction. Later, CVC had
changed the opinion without any reason while giving vigilance clearance
on 6.10.2008. Besides this, Court has made observations in one of its
F earlier judgments in K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala (2000) 3
SCC 761 about the role of accused in pending case before Special Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram in Palmolein case.
23. It is contended that in the instant case against respondent
No.2, there is no such incriminating material borne out from official
G records. The allegations are unfounded, made by busy-bodies with sinister
motives. The High Power Committee along with reports of various
authorities, Department of Revenue, CBI and Intelligence Bureau had
examined the allegations which belie the correctness of the unfounded
allegations. Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal has annexed the ground against
respondent No.2. The answering respondent in his capacity as Director
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 919
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

General of Income tax (Inv) Delhi (DGIT) had granted approval in the A
year 2011 for initiating criminal prosecution under section 182 IPC against
Mr. Agrawal. Further, the proceedings were instituted by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India based on a complaint filed by an officer
working under the answering respondent. Since then, Mr. Agrawal had
started personally attacking, writing a volley of frivolous and vexatious
B
complaints to many authorities in the Government etc. Complaints by
other public institutions smack of venom against several political persons.
The petition has not been filed with due diligence. Facts have not been
verified by filing applications under the RTI Act or some other legal
means. They have relied upon motivated complaint by Mr. Anil Agrawal
who was seeking pound of flesh from answering respondent for aforesaid C
reasons. The allegations are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Petitioners have not explained the basis. Mr. Anil Agrawal had written
hundreds of letters against answering respondent No.2 when he was
being considered for the post of Member, CBDT, Chairman, CBDT and
finally while being considered for the post of CVC. Mr. Agrawal had
D
supplied false and motivated information to one of the members of the
Common Cause and other political functionaries to initiate frivolous and
vexatious proceedings. It amounts to a proxy war by Mr. Anil Agrawal
through the petitioners and other public functionaries. One of the members
of Common Cause had unleashed a slander campaign in the social media
and press during the selection process with a view to prejudice the E
Selection Committee. Communications were released to media even
while the selection process was in progress, it apparently intended to
damage the prospects of selection of answering respondent No.2. Thus,
it was made an issue private and personal to them. The allegations made
fall short of the minimum standard of credibility. An effort has been
F
made to somehow indict the answering respondent by placing reliance
on a letter Annexure P3 in which false statements were made about the
answering respondent’s service record that three senior officers of
CBDT made serious adverse remarks in his performance appraisal
reports. Thus, the petitioners are guilty of malice in law by stating incorrect
facts. For perjury, petitioners be prosecuted. G
24. It is further contended by respondent No.2 in reply that while
he was posted as Director General of Income tax (Investigation), Delhi
from 1.11.2010 to 28.8.2012 and further from 29.8.2012 to 29.7.2014 he
was posted as Member, CBDT. Thus, he was a Member (Inv) CBDT
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A from 12.10.2012 to 31.10.2014. His duties included overall supervision
of investigations under the direct tax laws and formulation of policies
relating to direct taxes. He was appointed as Chairman, CBDT,
Department of Revenue from 1.8.2014 to 31.10.2014. After his
superannuation, he was appointed as Advisor to Department of Revenue
on black money and functioned as such from 1.11.2014 to 4.6.2015.
B
25. It is further contended by respondent that he had investigated,
supervised and monitored several cases of large business houses,
politically sensitive persons, and bureaucrats holding very high offices,
scams including 2G, commonwealth games and persons who were
allocated coal blocks, chit fund scams, undisclosed foreign bank accounts
C including in HSBC, Geneva etc. Many cases investigated under his
supervision finally led to detection and assessment of substantial
undisclosed income and criminal prosecutions. During his tenure as
Member (Inv) the number of cases in which prosecution proceedings
were launched, went up from 149 to 669 and further offences
D compounded increased from 83 to 900. Respondent No.2 was adjudged
one of the best Probationers during training and was awarded silver
medal, was promoted out of turn from Deputy Commissioner of Income
tax to Joint CIT on being graded as “outstanding” by UPSC. Very few
may be 15 to 20 officers hold such record in the IRS at all times put
together. His work, conduct, and integrity had always been rated at the
E highest level, ACRs. recorded by a wide range of officers over a period
of years bear sufficient testimony. A verbatim extract of the remarks of
the reporting and reviewing officers has been annexed as R2/1 to the
counter affidavit.
26. It is further contended that his application dated 7.8.2014 was
F duly forwarded by the Department of Revenue along with his ACRs.,
integrity certificate and vigilance clearance including a certificate that
no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were either pending or
contemplated against him. The DoPT has again called the applications
vide communication dated 13.10.2014 for CVC. This advertisement/
G notification appeared in the newspapers and on the Government website.
Application dated 21.10.2014 was again duly forwarded. The petition is
based mainly on the representations made by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal
who represented the grievances of one of his client M/s. Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd., searched by the Investigation Wing (Unit II) on 21.1.2011
when he was serving as DGIT (Inv), Delhi. He had made allegations on
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 921
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

5.2.2011 and 18.2.2011 that his client was being harassed in his capacity A
as DGIT (Investigation). Answering respondent had quickly responded
and brought harmony between the investigating officers and the taxpayer
to facilitate further investigation. Ultimately I.O. made a reference to
the CBI and other agencies. This did not suit the interest of Mr. Anil
Agarwal. He had represented himself as whole-time Director of M/s.
B
Dharamal Satyapal Ltd. It was found to be in violation of the provisions
of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Act and a complaint was
filed by the I.O. Mr. Gaurav Dudeja, DDIT (Investigation) before the
Institute of Chartered Accountants. The institute found Mr. Agrawal
prima facie guilty of professional misconduct and initiated disciplinary
proceedings as per Rule 9(1) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure C
of Investigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of
Cases) Rules, 2007 and decided to proceed under Chapter V of the
Rules. The consequential judicial proceedings were still pending.
Consequently, Mr. Agrawal in order to arm-twist the officers of the
income-tax department and by way of intimidation had been consistently
D
writing unfounded and baseless complaints against certain targeted
officials of the department levelling serious allegations. In the case of
M/s. Sanjay Parwal and other connected cases complaints were found
to be baseless and unfounded and the outcome of arm-twisting tactics.
27. It is further contended that answering respondent No.2 had
authorized the filing of a complaint under section 182 IPC against Mr. E
Anil Agarwal in his capacity as DGIT (Investigation) with the approval
of CBDT. It was filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax
(Investigation), Headquarters, New Delhi, before ACMM, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi. Copy of complaint has been placed on record. It was
mentioned in the complaint that false complaint had been filed against F
the officers to damage the reputation against the highly placed authorities.
The court has taken cognizance of the complaint. Bailable warrants
were issued on 6.2.2012 as service of summons was intentionally evaded
by Mr. Anil Agarwal. Various witnesses have been examined in the said
case including answering respondent No.2. The case was still pending.
Due to aforesaid reasons, Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal had been levelling G
wild allegations against the answering respondent. Under Secretary has
sought the comments of answering respondent as per O.M. dated
19.9.2014. The answering respondent has offered comments to the
aforesaid effect. Same has been placed on record. Regarding the visits
to Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, it is contended that respondent No.2 H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A was heading the Investigation Division of CBDT and in that capacity, he
had met the heads of other investigating agencies including the then
Director, CBI. The answering respondent met the Director at his residence
on a couple of occasions for some official work. He had also met him
and his predecessor in their respective offices in North Block and in
CBI Headquarters several times on official work. This can be verified
B
from the registers of said offices. It is contended that he had never
discussed the cases of Mr. Moin Qureshi or stock guru with the then
Director of CBI or during any such meeting. Petitioners have not
substantiated by any record their allegations that some cases have been
mutually and improperly settled. The allegations are based on conjectures
C and surmises.
28. That in the averments made and the facts mentioned in the
letter {P-3} written by the member of Common Cause dated 20.5.2015
it was nowhere observed by this Court that the impact of the meetings
has to be investigated by the CBI. The aforesaid averment is wrong and
D false and afterthought.
29. With respect to the allegations regarding Mr. Moin Qureshi, it
is contended in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that he
was a taxpayer in Delhi whose cases were investigated by the Delhi
Directorate by conducting search on 15.2.2014. Respondent No.2 was
E a Member (Investigation), CBDT at that point of time. In that capacity,
he monitored the cases across the country. The facts of the case and
the findings have been submitted to the Government from time to time.
All necessary actions including reference to foreign tax authorities,
references under Mutual Legal Assistance to Hong Kong, sharing the
information with the Enforcement Directorate, DRI, other relevant
F departments/agencies, Department of Financial Services and RBI
regarding illegal activities of certain foreign banks, banks were taken in
due time and with good results. The investigation apart from leading to
detection of undisclosed incomes and assets had led to the filing of
prosecution proceedings against certain persons. This Court in connection
G with coal mines allotment case i.e. W.P. (Civil) No.463 of 2012 directed
filing of investigation report relating to involvement of certain persons
and report was filed on 16.10.2014 in a sealed cover before this Court
on 17.10.2014. This Court had passed an order on 8.12.2014 in which
this Court has not expressed any dissatisfaction regarding the nature of
work of the Investigation Division much less in respect of the work of
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 923
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the answering respondent. No such allegation was ever made in the A
Court. Thus, the allegations made in the petition are baseless.
30. With respect to allegations regarding stock guru it is contended
in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 that stock guru and the persons
involved who were running a Ponzi scheme was investigated by the
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) under an Additional B
Director of Investigation reporting to Director of Investigation
(Investigation-II, Delhi) who in turn reported to the answering respondent
as the then DGIT (Investigation) Delhi. A search conducted on 6.1.2011
led to the seizure of Rs.34.69 crores in cash. Mr. Anil Agarwal
complained that the cash belonged to various depositors and it should
not have been seized. Some depositors filed a separate case in a court in C
Delhi. The seized money was deposited in court as per the order that
was passed. Certain allegations were made against the IO of stock guru
namely Yogender Mittal, DDIT (Investigation). Name of the answering
respondent did not figure anywhere in the FIR filed by the CBI nor there
was any allegation of any wrong doing against him. No shortcoming D
was found in his actions. The CVC, Department of Revenue and CBDT
had also got this issue enquired and apparently dismissed the allegations
made against respondent No.2 as baseless. In “Let us Share” annual
publication of CBDT many cases with which answering respondent was
associated were reported year after year. During the relevant year also
two cases were reported. E

31. With respect to allegations of M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd., it is contended in the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.2 that a search was conducted by the Criminal
Investigation Division of the Income Tax Department on the Ponty
Chadda Group on 1.2.2012. The said Division was being headed by Smt F
M. Sailoo, DGIT (I & CI) Delhi at that time. They prepared an Appraisal
Report and sent it to the Assessing Officer in the Central Charge. While
completing the assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in March
2014, the Assessing Officer found a suggestion in the Appraisal Report
that an addition of an amount of Rs.234 crores be made as unaccounted G
sales for the period from 01.09.2011 to 22.09.2011 as not acceptable.
After a close scrutiny of this Appraisal Report, the Assessing Officer
found that there is a discrepancy in treating this amount of Rs.234 crores
as unaccounted sales in the said Appraisal Report. It was identified that
it was a mistake that has been committed by the accountant in posting
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A cumulative sales of various depots in the month of September 2011,
instead of actual sale in the tally account maintained at head office,
which had prima facie resulted in the said discrepancy. As per procedure,
the Assessing Officer and Additional Commissioner in the Central Charge
who were not convinced of the correctness of the suggestion of bringing
the sum of Rs.234 crores to tax as unaccounted sales consulted the
B
I&CI Division, who stated that the matter may be decided as per Law
after taking into consideration the seized material, Appraisal Report, and
Submissions of the assessee. On a consideration of the facts, the
Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that there is no case for an
addition and passed the Assessment Order under IT Act with the approval
C of the Additional Commissioner. In a meeting held on 28.03.2014, the
DCIT (the Assessing Officer), the Additional Commissioner,
Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner apprised the Member-
investigation that they were of the view that no addition of Rs.234 crores
was warranted as there was no evidence to suggest, much less to prove
that unaccounted sales to that extent took place in the span of 21 days
D
from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011.
The answering respondent No.2 also agreed with the conclusion
and signed the minutes of the meeting. There was no case for making
an addition. He had not taken any such decision. The decision was taken
by the Assessing Officer and the Additional Commissioner in whom the
E power is vested. They had brought it to the notice of the Commissioner,
the Chief Commissioner and even the then Member probably due to the
huge amount involved and to avoid complaints of this kind. Mr. Anil
Kumar Agarwal has no connection with the said case. It is not brought
on record that the background note submitted jointly by the DCIT,
F Additional CIT, CIT and CCIT and the record of the discussion in the
meeting which clearly mentioned that the answering respondent had
only concurred with the prior decision of the officers concerned of not
making the addition on that issue. The record of the discussion in the
meeting had also been placed on record and was signed by all present.
In this Court false averment has been made in the petition. The allegations
G were probed by the competent authority and no irregularity whatsoever
was found.
32. With respect to the allegations regarding the handling of
accounts in the HSBC Bank it is pointed out in the counter affidavit by
respondent No.2 that information regarding certain bank accounts held
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 925
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

by persons of Indian origin in HSBC, Geneva was obtained by the A
Government (CBDT) from French Government relating to about 628
persons around June 2011. The CBDT passed-on the said information
to the respective DGsIT (13 in numbers) situated across the country.
About 148 names relating to Delhi were passed on to DGIT (investigation)
Delhi, which post was held by answering respondent at that time.
B
Answering respondent got 66 searches conducted relating to these cases
(as against a total 140 searchers, in such cases across the country)
(each case may relate to more than one name). Remaining cases were
investigated either through Surveys u/s 133 A and/or Open Enquiries u/
s 131 of the IT Act etc. The best results were achieved in the Delhi
region. As per the procedure that is laid down, the Investigation Division C
prepared Appraisal Reports and sent them to the Assessing Officers
concerned for further action such as assessment of income, recovery of
tax, levy of penalty, initiation of prosecution proceedings in appropriate
cases, etc.
33. It is further contended that the answering respondent No.2 D
was the only DGIT (investigation) who submitted proposals for the
approval/ consideration of the CBDT for action (prosecution under the
IT Act, and action under the Banking Companies Regulation Act, etc.)
against the concerned foreign bank, its Indian affiliates and the persons
concerned.
E
34. The answering respondent No.2 also held several video
conferences periodically, that is to say, on 15.11.2012, 01.05.2013,
20.01.2014, 20.06.2014, etc. The answering respondent submitted that
he was also instrumental in issuing several instructions and guidance
notes for dealing with this category of cases which was a new and
hitherto not-conceived kind of a work for the Investigating Officers and F
Assessing Officers. The answering respondent further submitted that
hundreds of references were made through the Commissioners
concerned, through the Foreign Tax Authorities under the provisions of
Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAA)/Tax Information Exchange
Treaties as the information received through the French Government G
was incomplete in most cases. Only when it became clear that there
was no possibility of getting further documents/information from the Swiss
Tax Authorities due to certain limitations in the Tax Treaties, the Assessing
Officers could go ahead with making assessments and further actions,
including prosecution.
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A 35. Efforts made by the answering respondent No.2 that a
methodology called “Consent Waiver Mechanism” was devised due to
which, with the consent of tax-payers, the copies of the Foreign Bank
Accounts could be obtained from the foreign bank directly without going
through the Swiss Tax authorities under the DTAA in about 80 cases,
though they could not be obtained under DTAA. This is an innovative
B
and successful action that has been evolved on account of the contribution
of answering respondent.
36. The answering respondent No.2 further submitted that having
regard to the seriousness of the matter, he had devised a diligent procedure
for analyzing the database. He also actively collaborated with French
C Tax Authorities and obtained information in respect of 575 cases which
were hitherto not available to the Indian Authorities. This analysis that
he had adopted has resulted in the detection of these new accounts and
this method of analysis was new even to the French Authorities, who
initially shared the information with Indian Authorities.
D 37. The answering respondent No.2 submitted that the assessment
proceedings were conducted by Assessing Officers situated across the
country and it involved making references to foreign jurisdictions, local
inquiries which took considerable time and ultimately all the assessments
have been completed by the Assessing Officers concerned within the
E statutory time allowed under the Income Tax Act. After that, the Assessing
Officers started initiating prosecution proceedings in appropriate cases.
Prosecution proceedings are to be initiated by Assessing Officers
concerned across the country with necessary sanction from the
Commissioners of Income Tax concerned (Sec. 279 of the Income Tax
Act). The answering respondent further submitted that these are quasi-
F judicial functions to be exercised by the empowered officers and the
CBDT only provides necessary guidance and monitors the progress. He
submitted that he has exercised these functions diligently due to which
as on 31-03-2015, about 121 prosecutions were launched in this category
of cases and some more were in process. He further submitted that he
G had further followed up the proposals earlier submitted by him as DGIT
(Investigation) Delhi and certain actions were initiated, wherever it was
possible. Under these circumstances and the various efforts put in by
him, including evolving of innovative methods of analysis; it is incorrect
and absolutely inappropriate to allege that he had not initiated prosecution
in these cases.
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 927
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

38. This Court constituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) A
headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah (Retd.) and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Arijit Pasayat (Retd.). In this context he only begged to submit
and bring to the notice of this Court the following observations of SIT in
its 3rd Report:
“Shri K.V. Chowdary Advisor to CBDT and former Chairman, B
CBDT carried out detailed investigation and visited Paris in
December 2014. During the said visit, he met the French authorities
dealing with HSBC foreign accounts matters and new lines/modes
of investigation have been pursued. As a part of such investigation,
fresh references under Double Taxation Avoidance Convention
(DTAC) were made by the CBDT to France in 605 cases, C
requesting for additional information.
As a result of persistent follow-up, further information has been
received in 575 cases in the last week of February 2015. Based
upon new inputs (mostly in existing 624 cases), further investigation
is in progress. It has been observed that some of the cases which D
were hitherto not actionable may become actionable as a result
of such further investigations.”
39. The answering respondent No.2 is assisting SIT even after he
had been appointed CVC. The Chairman of SIT on Black Money has
issued a direction to the following effect : E

“Shri K.V. Choudary, Ex-Chairman, CBDT and presently CVC
shall assist the SIT as and when required and in such matters as
the SIT would direct to provide necessary inputs.”
Proceedings dated 24.7.2015 has been placed on record. F
40. With respect to the allegation of failure to make any headway
in 2G scam investigation, it was submitted that answering respondent
No.2 worked as DGIT (Investigation) Delhi from 1.11.2010 to August
2012. During this period the case of Unitech Ltd., whose associate/
sister concern was granted telecom licence and few connected cases of
G
other telecom companies being investigation in other charges were
investigated in the Delhi Directorate by DIT (Inv)-I who functioned
under him. All necessary investigations were carried out and findings
were communicated to the Assessing Officers who took appropriate
actions. However other cases of telecom companies were within the
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A jurisdictions of DGsIT (Inv), Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru etc. for the
purpose of making presentations and meetings on behalf of the Income-
Tax Department, DGIT (Investigation), Delhi was appointed as the Nodal
authority. They had coordinated with other DGsIT and other investigating
agencies including CBI, ED etc. and had also made several presentations
on the action taken by the Income Tax Department before the Joint
B
Parliamentary Committee.
41. This Court has never expressed dissatisfaction or inadequacy
regarding the functioning.
42. With respect to the allegation regarding Radia Tapes when
C answering respondent No.2 had joined as DGIT (Investigations) on
1.11.2010, the surveillance of Ms. Nira Radia was over. Actionable issues
were identified and necessary action was taken either by the Delhi
Directorate or was communicated to other Directorates for further action.
The information was duly shared with the assessing officers, and other
law enforcement authorities such as CBI, ED etc. The matter was before
D this Court. The representations were submitted from time to time. None
of the authorities found any shortcomings or inaction on his part on this
count. No such allegation was made before this Court against him by
the counsel appearing in 2G scam case.
43. In the counter affidavit filed by Mr. T.M. Bhasin, respondent
E No.3, in the reply contends that the petition is based upon suppression
and false averments have been made. As such petition suffers from
suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. Respondent No.3 has an excellent
academic record and vast experience and expertise in the field of banking.
He is (i) an M.Sc. Gold Medalist, (ii) LLB, MBA Finance from Delhi
F University, (iii) Topper in the Delhi University in the flagship one-year
programme viz. ‘Criminology and Forensic Science’; and (iv) CAIIB.
In addition to the above qualifications, he had a wide and varied experience
in Banking where he joined as a Probationary Officer in 1978 and in
course of time got due promotions and reached the level of General
Manager in 2003. He has got about 8 years of experience as a Whole
G Time Director in two Public Sector Banks, comprising of Executive
Director (ED) from November 2007 to March 2010 in UBI and as
Chairman and Managing Director of the Indian Bank for the period
2010-2015. It is pointed out that at the time of his present selection he
was the longest serving Senior-most Chairman & Managing Director in
H Public Sector Banks. He had also headed the Indian Banks’ Association
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 929
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

as a Chairman and was also Chairman of the Indian Institute of Banking A
Personnel Selection and was also President of the Indian Institute of
Banking Finance (IIBF) since 2014. He had also experience in the
Insurance Sector having worked for nearly five years as a Director on
the Board of United India Insurance Company. That during his 37 years
long Banking career he has an impeccable record of integrity, sincerity,
B
honesty, and dedication towards duty. Under his stewardship as CMD
of Indian Bank, the Bank had won various National Awards like the
following:
• National Award for excellence in Lending to Micro Enterprises
for FY 2012 on 4th April 2013 from Hon’ble President of India.
C
• National Award to Banks FY 2013 – First Prize for Excellence
in lending to Micro Enterprises on 01.03.2014 from Hon’ble
Prime Minister of India.
• Indira Gandhi Rajbhasha Puraskar for 2012-2013 for South Zone
TOLIC from Hon’ble President of India. D
• First price and Best Bank Award for extending credit to SHGs
on 24.02.2014 from Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
consecutively for five years.
44. It was further stated that initially he was given five years
E
tenure as Chairman & Managing Director of the Indian Bank from
1.4.2010 to 31.3.2015. Being satisfied with the performance of the Bank
during the said period, his tenure was further extended by Appointment
Committee of the Cabinet vide Government notification dated 27.3.2015
from 1.4.2015 up to the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.5.2016. At
each stage of new appointment/assignment above, all necessary F
clearances had been obtained by DFS from the CVC, CBI, DoPT and
other concerned departments and agencies. Respondent No.3 had applied
for the post of Vigilance Commissioner pursuant to a notification dated
13.10.2014.
45. With respect to the allegation of tampering with APAR of Mr. G
Malay Mukherjee, respondent No.3 received a letter from Ms. Sumita
Dawara, Director of Financial Services dated 4.11.2010 to send details
of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) of eligible GMs for
selection as Executive Director by 15.11.2010 on an urgent basis. The
respondent states that the relevant APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, the
H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A then GM, Indian Bank for the period 2009-10, duly appraised by Mr.
V.Ram Gopal (Executive Director) was received on November 15, 2010,
and he, as reviewing authority, concurred with Average Rating Appraisal
done by Mr. V. Ram Gopal and it was sent to the DFS in compliance
with the letter dated 4.11.2010. The respondent states that Mr. Malay
Mukherjee claimed to have submitted his APAR for the year 2009-2010
B
on 29.07.2010 and by which time Mr. Sundarrajan, the former CMD
had demitted office on 31.3.2010. As per Rule 5(7) of All India Services
(Performance Appraisal Reports) Rules 2007, a retired official can review
the performance of the appraisee only within one month of the date of
his retirement. As previous CMD had demitted office as early as
C 31.03.2010, the respondent who was the incumbent CMD had rightly
exercised his Reviewing Authority powers, which was the extant practice
too. There is nothing on record of the Bank to substantiate the version of
Mr. Malay Mukherjee, about the submission of the APAR for 2009-
2010 on 29.07.2010. Even going by averments of Mr. Malay Mukherjee,
the APAR was dated 07.07.2010, whereas Mr. Sundarrajan the earlier
D
CMD had demitted office over three months earlier. The Vigilance
Department of the Indian Bank had during its internal inquiry found out
that the statement of Mr. Malay Mukherjee claiming to have sent the
APAR by courier and the proof produced thereof was unsubstantiated.
46. Nothing on record was found to substantiate the version of
E Mr. Malay Mukherjee about the submission of APAR for the period
2009-2010 on 29.7.2010. According to Mr. Mukherjee APAR was dated
7.7.2010 whereas Mr. Sundarrajan had demitted the office more than
three months before. The Vigilance Department of Indian Bank had
during its internal inquiry found that the claim of Mr. Mukherjee that
F APAR was sent by courier on 29.7.2010 was not substantiated. Said
courier was sent from Zonal Office to Bhopal. The petitioners have
relied upon the notings of Shri R. Srikumar, Vigilance Commissioner,
(VC(S)) whereas majority opinion was not for criminal investigation.
Majority opined that the CVC did not ask the CBI to investigate the
matter, that the CVC may ask for certain documents from the CVO/
G DFS so as to ascertain as to the APAR and then to reach a final
conclusion. The CVC had agreed with the VC(G) in this regard. That
there was disagreement with VC(G) on two occasions i.e. on 15.10.2012
and 30.11.2012 and it is the majority view that prevails.

H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 931
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

47. Pursuant to the majority opinion steps of follow up were taken A
whereafter the CVO and DFS have opined that there is no conclusive
evidence for initiating even departmental inquiry as that may not stand
the scrutiny of law as is apparent from OMs. dated 27.8.2012 and
24.12.2012.
48. Respondent No.3 had received OM dated 6.9.2013. For the B
first time, he was provided an opportunity to submit his version on the
various allegations made by Mr. Malay Mukherjee. Answering respondent
submitted the detailed 32 pages reply with 130 pages Annexures and it
was the normal practice to write APAR once the previous CMD had
retired. Thus, he had not committed any illegality or irregularity in doing
so. C

49. Considering the reply submitted by answering respondent No.3
on 26.9.2013, the Department of Financial Services sent a Memorandum
dated 10.3.2014 as R-III to CVC, clarifying the whole matter and
appraisal of Mr. Mukherjee’s APAR and holding that the deponent had
not violated any guideline and no disciplinary action was warranted. D

50. A detailed version of Department of Financial Services
summarised in the file notings of CVC dated 31.3.2014, 28.4.2014 and
6.5.2014, thus, gave finality/closure to the whole issue, has been accepted
by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Same is extracted hereunder :
E
“The Extract of the official file notings dated 28.04.2014, on the
observations of the Advisor by Vigilance Commissioner, Shri Rajiv
and that of Central Vigilance Commissioner is given hereunder :
VC (R) noted “matter may be closed. It is more of an
administrative nature and not exactly a vigilance issue” F
51. The CVC had also concurred with the VC and made the
following noting:
“I am in agreement with VC (R) that writing of APAR and its
review is essentially an administrative matter. However, in this
case, it had acquired vigilance overtones due to allegations of G
tampering of APAR. DFS, after the inquiry, has come to the
conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the most
crucial charge of tampering with the APAR of Shri Malay
Mukherjee. I am inclined to agree with DFS in this respect. DFS
has however pointed out that Shri Bhasin wrote the APAR of
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A 2009-10, without having overseen the work of Mr. Malay Mukerjee.
Shri Bhasin, in his defense, has cited past precedents. DFS has
also conceded the need to have uniform guidelines in Banks to
avoid such confusions and inconsistencies. However, DFS has
considered it unethical on the part of Shri Bhasin to have written
‘Average’ at two places. For this Shri Bhasin may be cautioned
B
and the case closed as proposed by VC (R)”
52. No punishment was imposed. Only an observation was made
to be cautious. The same was advisory in nature and not a penalty. Thus
after receipt of reply matter stood concluded. The allegations of tampering
and forging were found baseless and closed. The factum of closure has
C been suppressed by the petitioner. The clearance of respondent No.3
had been made by the CVC also and CVC has given the clearance in
which it was opined that there was nothing adverse against the answering
respondent.
53. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the
D petitioner submitted that the appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as
per mandate of this Court in Centre for PIL (supra), respondent Nos.2
and 3 could not be termed as persons of impeccable integrity, consequently
they could not be said to be fit to hold the office of CVC and VC in the
absence of Lokpal is required to discharge important functions and to
E ensure that functionaries versed with integrity in the interest of the nation
considering the higher responsibilities. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could
not be said to be suitable for the posts in question. The appointment of
Mr. K.V. Chowdary, CVC, respondent No.2 has been assailed. It was
urged by learned counsel that respondent No.2 had connections with
Mr. Ranjit Sinha, former CBI Director. There was quid pro quo between
F them since respondent No.2 was given clean chit in stock guru scam
and in turn income tax department in its appraisal report of Mr. Qureshi
gave clean chit to Mr. Ranjit Sinha. Since respondent No.2 was involved
in stock guru scam and gave favourable report to Mr. M.Qureshi the
credentials of respondent No.2 could not be said to be proper and
G trustworthy. Respondent No.2 was also involved in M/s. Flora and Fauna
Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and in waiving off Rs.234 crores and
had influenced the decision making by the assessing officer in illegal
manner. It was also urged that respondent No.2 did not actively investigate
the foreign accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva. There was failure of
respondent No.2 to make any headway into the scam investigation as no
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 933
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

action was taken with respect to Radia Tapes. All these facts have not A
been examined by the Union of India before making appointment of
CVC as such same is liable to be quashed.
54. With respect to the appointment of VC, Mr. T.M.Bhasin learned
counsel has urged that he was indicted in a detailed inquiry by the CVC
in 2013 for forging and tampering with the appraisal report of Mr. Malay B
Mukherjee, General Manager, Indian Bank. Even his criminal prosecution
was suggested by one of the Vigilance Commissioners since he had
fabricated the APAR of Mr. Malay Mukherjee, the appointment of
respondent No. 3 as Vigilance Commissioner was null and void since
there was finding of moral turpitude by the CVC against Mr. T.M.Bhasin
which made him unfit to hold the office of Vigilance Commissioner. C

55. It was also urged by learned counsel that in order to ensure a
transparent procedure for an appointment it is necessary the persons
who have been empanelled should be disclosed to the public so that it
can send information in respect of such persons to the Government.
D
56. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India,
contended that there was absolutely nothing against Mr. K.V.Chowdary.
He has produced the record which this Court had directed and contended
that on the basis of representations filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal
and others, were looked into, reports were called from concerned
departments, viz., Department of Revenue/MoF/IB/CBI etc. Clearances E
were obtained and it was found that there was no merit in the aforesaid
objections which were raised in the representations and the Committee
has taken a unanimous decision, with respect to suitability vigilance
clearance has been obtained. It is not open within parameters of judicial
review as laid down in Centre for PIL (supra) to make interference in F
the appointments made unanimously by the High Power Committee on
due consideration of entire material. It was pointed out that the due
procedure has been adopted for appointments of CVC and VC and has
produced the various files for perusal of this Court. He has taken the
Court in extensive details with respect to the procedure adopted with
the help of record. Various other files as to matter in question as prayed G
by the Common Cause Society have also been produced.
57. Per contra, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan learned senior counsel
contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that the allegations made in the
petition are based upon the incorrect statement and on an imaginary
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A basis and are not supported by any material, they are based upon
assumptions made by the petitioners with respect to the integrity of
respondent No.2. There was absolutely nothing against respondent No.2.
The requisite clearances had been obtained from various departments
and there was nothing against in the entire service record of Mr. K.V.
Chowdary. His record was excellent with rich experience and has been
B
found fit by the High Power Committee in an objective manner after
duly considering the various aforesaid objections which were raised in
the representations filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal. He had the personal
axe to grind against respondent No.2. As he was prosecuted as per the
approval granted by respondent No.2 and disciplinary proceedings had
C also been initiated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, on that
basis respondent No.2 had deposed against him in a criminal case pending
in the court at Delhi. Thus, baseless and reckless allegations were
repeatedly made by him at every juncture whenever respondent No.2
was selected for any high office. These allegations were never found to
be proved and were mischievously raised with the objective to malign
D
him due to personal vengeance. The aspersions cast have been refuted
and it was asserted that no case for interference in the judicial review
was made out.
58. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel on behalf of
Mr.T.M.Bhasin, VC, contended that firstly no representation was filed
E against Mr.T.M.Bhasin by any of the incumbents still the High Powered
Committee was apprised of the said aspect relating to APAR of Mr.
Malay Mukherjee and it was found that the allegation of fabrication of
APAR was not substantiated. The conclusion was reached that it was
not a case even to hold a departmental inquiry and it was held and simply
F a caution was issued. It was also urged that there was no fabrication of
the APAR of Mr.Malay Mukherjee and he is said to have sent an APAR
for 2009-2010 which was signed by the retired CMD Mr. Sundarrajan
on 7.7.2010. He claimed that it was dispatched by him on 29.7.2010.
Said courier with the said number was dispatched to Bhopal and not to
the concerned office. No such APAR was received by the office. Even
G otherwise erstwhile CMD had demitted the office on 31.3.2010 and as
per Rule 5(7) of the Rules of 2007, a retired official can review the
performance of the appraisee only within one month from the date of his
retirement. Since the CMD had demitted the office on 31.3.2010 the
power could not have been exercised by him on 7.7.2010. No such APAR
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 935
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

had been received. Such power was rightly exercised by respondent A
No.3 to write APAR in the capacity of reviewing officer to make a
remark in the APAR. For perjury, the petitioners be prosecuted. Further
communication dated 4.11.2010 was required to be sent. It was not a
case of fabrication or forging the APAR at all as suggested by the
petitioners. When the various departments have not found anything
B
against answering respondent and after respondent No. 3 had filed a
representation matter was dropped. It could not be said that there was
anything to blame the outstanding record and high integrity of respondent
No.3.
59. It need not be re-emphasized that the Central Vigilance
Commission is one of the integrity institutions. It was set up in 1964. C
After the decision rendered by this Court in Vineet Narain (supra), the
2003 Act has been enacted and its function is to improve the vigilance
administration of the country and to have anti-corruption measures.
Pursuant to recommendations made by the Reviewing Committee, the
report made by it in December 1997 statutory status was suggested. D
This Court in Vineet Narain (supra) had observed that the given status
as recommended by the independent Reviewing Committee, in the year
1999 an Ordinance was issued which was replaced by the 2003 Act.
Section 4 lays down constitution of the Committee. The Prime Minister
as Chairperson, the Home Minister as a member and Leader of Opposition
in the House of People is also a member of the said Committee. In case E
there is no Leader of Opposition, the leader of opposition to include the
leader of the single largest group in opposition and no appointment made
shall be invalid, may be by reason of any vacancy in the Committee. The
appointment has to be made by the President as provided in section 5.
The oath has to be administered. Section 6 deals with removal of F
Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner, contains safeguards. On a
reference being made by the President on the ground of proved
misbehavior or incapacity to this Court. On inquiry, it was reported that
CVC or VC be removed on said grounds. The other exigencies with
respect to removal contained in sub-section (3) to section 6 on being
declared insolvent or convicted of an offence, engages during his term G
of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office or in the
opinion of President is unfit by reason of infirmity of mind or body, has
acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect his functioning
as the CVC or VC.
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A 60. Just to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment with respect to offences under the
P.C. Act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant specified in
sub-section (2) under the Cr.P.C. may be charged with at the trial, and
may issue directions to the CBI, review the progress of investigations
conducted by CBI, review the progress of applications pending with the
B
competent authority for sanction of prosecution under the P.C. Act,
exercise superintendence over vigilance of various Ministries etc. It can
enquire into an investigation to be made as the member of All India
Services etc. as provided in section 8. The Vigilance Commission is an
institution. Thus, the institution’s competency is to be ensured by the
C Government as well as its integrity. Consequently, the personal integrity
of an individual also becomes relevant as it has correlation with the
institution’s integrity.
IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF CVC :
61. In the backdrop of aforesaid first, we consider the case of
D Mr.K.V.Chowdary appointed as CVC. The process of appointment that
has been followed reflects that the procedure followed was by issuing
advertisement in newspapers. Wide publicity was given, various
advertisements throughout India were issued. 132 applications were
received. The Committee headed by Cabinet Secretary shortlisted 12
E names of CVC and 10 names for V.C. However, details of all 131
applicants which included work experience, ACR grading wherever
applicable, vigilance clearance, age criteria, experience in the matter
relating to vigilance, policy making and administration were placed before
the Committee – HPC. The HPC in its meeting dated 23.5.2015 shortlisted
six candidates for the post of CVC and 2 candidates for the post of
F Vigilance Commissioner and called for inputs on the representations.
The second meeting of the Committee took place on 1.6.2015. The agenda
placed before the Committee contained all the details including vigilance
details of shortlisted applicants. The details of Mr. K.V.Chowdary were
placed in the file and the details of Mr. T.M.Bhasin were placed.
G 62. There were three representations/complaints against Mr.
K.V.Chowdary. The Prime Minister’s Office had asked for inputs on
the allegations so made as to ascertain the correctness of facts contained
in the representations.

H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 937
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

63. So far as Mr. T.M.Bhasin is concerned no such complaint A
was received. However, during vigilance inquiry which was conducted
by respondent No.1, mentioned as to the complaint with regard to Mr.
Malay Mukherjee and said fact was mentioned under the heading of
vigilance clearance. It was mentioned that there was nothing adverse
against Mr. Bhasin on that account. The Department of Financial Services
B
had while giving its report went into the entire allegations with regard to
Mr. Malay Mukherjee as against Mr. T.M.Bhasin and cleared him. The
CVC also has given clearance to Mr. T.M.Bhasin on 2.2.2015.
64. With respect to Mr. K.V.Chowdary complaints were placed
before the Committee along with the facts and true position regarding
the allegations. Note that was placed before the Committee, mentioned C
all the allegations made in three complaints and imputation of the factual
position received with regard to the same from various agencies like IB,
CBI, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance which was summoned
by the PMO so as to place the same before the HPC. The Committee
considered all the allegations against all shortlisted candidates including D
Mr. K.V.Chowdary and Mr. T.M.Bhasin and unanimously decided to
appoint them as Chief Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance
Commissioner respectively.
65. The Union of India has submitted following files for our perusal:
(A) Minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on E
23.5.2015 and 1.6.2015;
(B) Meeting notice and agenda for the first meeting of HPC held
on 23.5.2015;
(C) Meeting notice and agenda for the Selection Committee F
meeting held on 1.6.2015;
(D) Folder G containing IB reports;
(E) Folder (I) vigilance clearance from the Department of Financial
Services and CVC;
(F) Representations and letters submitted against the appointment G
of respondent Nos.2 and 3;
(G) Complaints and inputs on the same placed before the
Committee;

H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A (H) Annexure E containing the record of CVC, DoPT, DFS in the
case of respondent No.3 regarding his role in APAR of Mr. Malay
Mukherjee;
(I) Income tax record regarding assessment proceedings of M/s.
Flora and Fauna Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. which
B was associated with Mr. Ponty Chadha;
(J) CBI report in Stock Guru scam involving income tax officers.
(K) Record pertaining to income tax assessment of M/s. Flora
and Fauna Housing and Land Development for the assessment
year 2012-13 containing following folders/details of which are
C furnished in the tabular form :

Sl. No. Record Page Brief Description of the record submitted

1 Folder – 1 1-11 Copy of the Income tax return filed by M/S Flora
and Fauna Housing & Land Development (P) Ltd
D for Assessment Year 2012-13

2 Folder – 2 1-124 Correspondence of the AO with his superiors as
also Directorate of I&CI mainly on the alleged
issue of Rs.234 crore [sales figures as entered in the
tally seized accounts and the sales figures as per the
E sales ledgers of the various depos]
Background note for the meeting of the officers of
3 Folder – 3 1-39
the central charge, New Delhi with the
Member(Investigation) on 28.3.2014 to apprise him
of the decision taken by the A0 for not making an
addition on the alleged issue of Rs. 234 crore. It
F
also contains minutes of the said meeting.

4 Folder – 4 1-786 Notices issued by the AO to the assessee, replies
filed by the assessee, Notices/Summons issued to
other persons, statement of persons recorded during
assessment proceedings, draft assessment order
G submitted by the AO to his Additional
Commissioner for statutory approval, approval
given by the Additional Commissioner, the
Assessment Order passed by the AO, demand
notice issued etc.

H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 939
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

A
5 Folder – 5 1-43 Correspondence of AO with officers of the C&AG
regarding audit and special audit of the assessment
of M/S Flora and Fauna Housing & Land
Development (P) Ltd for Assessment Year 2012-
13.
6 Folder – 6 1-5 Copies of assessment order and office note B
(original in Folder-4 above)
7 Folder – 7 1-12 Explanatory brief of the records given by
CBDT: Contained in the secret communication of
CBDT to Department of Personnel & Training
vide F.No.286/73/2015-IT (Inv.II) dated
13.9.2017
C

IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.2
ed
M/S Flora 66. Even before the appointment of respondent No.2 some
nt (P) Ltd representations were filed not to appoint him as CVC. The main thrust
of the arguments raised by the petitioners’ counsel was that the D
appointment violated the institutional integrity and respondent No.2 could
periors as not be said to be a person of impeccable integrity. For this various reasons
e alleged have been assigned without meaning to give clean-chit. We examine
ered in the them whether the prima facie case is made out by the petitioners to
as per the make interference. We propose to discuss them in seriatim:
E
Respondent No.2 met Mr. Ranjit Sinha the then Director, CBI
officers of who was directed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2015 in C.A.
with the No.1060 of 2010. This Court had directed Mr. Ranjit Sinha not to interfere
pprise him
making an
in investigation prosecutions carried out by CBI in 2G scam case and to
4 crore. It recuse himself from 2G scam case. This Court had also observed against
Mr. Sinha that the meetings with accused in coal scam were inappropriate. F
These allegations are against Mr. Ranjit Sinha. However, what is
ee, replies
submitted against respondent No.2 is that respondent No.2 had met Mr.
issued to
ded during Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director on 29.12.2013 and 20.4.2014 for 15 minutes
ent order on earlier occasions and 8 minutes on a later date. When the meetings
Additional were held, respondent No.2 was probing the interception dealings of G
approval Hawala dealer Mr. Moin Qureshi. Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, was
oner, the investigating Stock Guru scam where senior income tax officers were
, demand involved in which Mr. Sinha was investigating the role of respondent
No.2. Certain senior income tax officers had taken a bribe to favour two
scamsters of Stock Guru and had misappropriated about Rs.40 crores.
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A Said officers were working under respondent No.2. Thus, it was not
appropriate for respondent No.2 to meet Mr. Ranjit Sinha. Income tax
department gave a clean chit to Mr. Ranjit Sinha in respect of Mr. Moin
Qureshi and CBI gave a clean chit to respondent No.2. Thus, respondent
No.2 and Mr. Ranjit Sinha helped each other.
B 67. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it has been
stated that since he was heading the Investigation Division of CBDT
and in that capacity, he had met the heads of other investigating agencies
on several occasions including the Joint Director, CBI, Mr.Ranjit Sinha.
Answering respondent met the Director on a couple of occasions at the
residence and in the office of several officers. At no point of time, the
C cases of Mr. Moin Qureshi or Stock Guru were ever discussed with the
then Director of CBI Mr. Ranjit Sinha.
68. With respect to the arguments this Court on 14.5.2015 has
observed as under :
“36. As mentioned above, it is not necessary for us to examine
D
whether the investigation into the case of the Dardas was in any
manner influenced by Mr. Sinha at any point of time. What is of
importance is that as justice must not only be done but it must also
appear to have been done, similarly, investigations must not only
be fair but must appear to have been conducted in a fair manner.
E The fact that Mr. Sinha met some of the accused persons without
the investigating officer or the investigating team being present
disturbs us with regard to the fairness of the investigations. This
is all the more so if we keep in mind the fact that in the 2G scam
investigations, this Court had concluded in its order dated 20th
November, 20141 that Mr. Ranjit Sinha should not interfere in the
F
investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G
spectrum allocation and to rescue himself from the case. That a
SIT was not ordered in the 2G spectrum case is not relevant. A
view was taken that Mr. Sinha should be directed to not interfere
in the investigations in that case and that, coupled with his meeting
G accused persons in the Coal Block Allocation case without the
investigating officer being present, is enough to persuade us that
some further inquiry is necessary to ensure that the investigations
have been fair in the coal block allocation cases where Mr. Sinha
has had one or more meetings with one or more accused persons...
...
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 941
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

46. With regard to IA No.13 of 2014, since we have held that it A
was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha to have met
persons accused in the Coal Block Allocation case without the
investigating officer being present or without the investigating team
being present, it is necessary to look into the question whether
any one or more such meetings of Mr. Sinha with accused persons
B
without the investigating officer have had any impact on the
investigations and subsequent charge sheets or closure reports
filed by the CBI. We require assistance in this matter, particularly
for determining the methodology for conducting such an inquiry.
For rendering assistance to us in this regard, notice be issued to
the Central Vigilance Commission returnable on 6th July 2015.” C
69. No observations were made by this Court against respondent
No.2 Mr. K.V. Chowdary and there was no allegation made against Mr.
K.V. Chowdary in this Court by any person including the same counsel
for the petitioner. The petitioners have come up with the case that there
was meeting on two occasions, whereas respondent No.2 has disclosed D
that in the office there were several meetings. It was usual to meet for
Heads of various investigating agencies in connection with official work.
There being no other material to substantiate aforesaid aspersions it is
simpliciter an assumption that the meetings took place with an evil design.
The highest officers might have discussed the other issues. There is no
other supporting material to substantiate the aforesaid aspersions. How E
the help was extended, in what manner and in Stock Guru scam there
was no allegation against respondent No.2 in any manner whatsoever.
Thus, it is far-fetched to urge that the aforesaid meetings were to extend
help to each other.
70. With respect to Stock Guru, the investigation was made not F
by respondent No.2 but by Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation)
and under Additional Director of Investigation, reporting to Director of
Investigation, Investigation-II, Delhi, who in turn reported to the
respondent, the then Additional D.G. (IG) Investigation, Delhi. Such
conduct on 6.2.2012 led to a seizure of Rs.34.96 crores in cash. Initially, G
there was a complaint by Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal who had nothing to
do with this case that the cash belonged to various depositors and it
should not have been seized. On a case filed the amount was deposited
in court as per the order passed by the court. Appraisal report was
prepared by the I.O. and sent to assessing officer who initiated
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A assessment proceedings. However, on 3.6.2013 the CBI started an
investigation into the conduct of the then I.O. of Stock Guru, that is Mr.
Yogender Mittal, who was DIG – Investigation. The name of respondent
No.2 did not figure in the First Information Report filed by the CBI. No
wrongdoing, no shortcoming was found by any authority in the action of
respondent No.2 when 13 allegations were made by Mr. Anil Kumar
B
Agarwal against respondent No.2. The CVC, Department of Revenue
and Department of CBDT got the issues enquired and allegations were
found to be baseless.
71. With respect to the allegations made by Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal, it was clear that since he was criminally prosecuted under
C section 182 IPC and disciplinary proceedings, had been initiated against
him by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India at the instance of
respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had deposed against him in the
criminal case in the court and once upon time Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal
had appreciated the gesture of respondent No.2 it was clearly an
D afterthought for him to level the allegations which were without any
supporting material and had never been substantiated by any material.
In the newspaper report dated 15.4.2014 name of respondent No.2 was
not mentioned, no supervisory failure was attributed. Respondent No.2
was not subjected to an investigation by the CBI. Thus, the aforesaid
cast of aspersions upon respondent No.2 by the petitioners has no basis.
E Same is not substantiated by any material and is simply stated to be
rejected.
72. File No.245/32/2015-AVD.II has been produced which contains
the answers of CBI with respect to various queries made which were
on the basis of the complaint. It has been mentioned that the CBI has
F investigated the relevant case during the tenure of Mr. Ranjit Sinha in
the Stock Guru scam on the basis of a complaint received from E.O.W.,
Delhi Police, relating to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
from Mr. Ulhas Prabhakar of M/s. Stock Guru by Mr. Yogender Mittal
(IRS-2006), ADIT to help him in the income-tax case. The investigation
G did not reveal the involvement of Mr. K.V. Chowdary. It was also noted
that nothing came to the notice of CBI against Mr. K.V. Chowdary.
73. Another aspersion on the integrity cast is relating to a search
conducted by criminal investigation division of income-tax on Ponty
Chadha group M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
H on 1.2.2012. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 943
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

respondent No.2 abused his position to under-assess the income of the A
said company by an amount of Rs.234 crores. He issued a direction to
the assessing officer to dispose of the case in a particular manner which
could not have been done in view of section 119 of the Income Tax Act
and judgment of this Court. The CBDT had no jurisdiction to instruct the
assessing officer to dispose of a case in a particular manner.
B
74. On behalf of respondent No.2, it was contended that search
was conducted by criminal investigation division headed by Smt. M.
Saillo, DGIT, Delhi. It was not conducted by respondent No.2. They
prepared an appraisal report and sent it to the assessing officer in the
Central charge. While completing the assessment for the relevant
assessment year. The assessing officer on a suggestion in the appraisal C
report that addition of an amount of Rs.234 crores be made as the
accounted sale from 1.9.2011 to 22.9.2011 as not acceptable since
appraisal report was prepared by a team of aforesaid DGsIT. Since
discrepancy was found in the appraisal report it was identified that it
was a mistake committed by the accountant in posting cumulative sales D
of various depots in the month of September 2011 in actual sales.
75. As the matter was to be decided as per law the assessing
officer came to the conclusion that there was no case for addition and
passed an order under the Income Tax Act with the approval of the
Additional Commissioner. In a meeting held on 22.3.2014, DCIT E
(Assessing Officer), the Additional Commissioner and Chief
Commissioner apprised respondent No.2, Member (Investigation) that
they were of the view that no addition of Rs.234 crores was warranted
as there was no evidence to suggest much less to prove that an accounted
sale to that extent took place in the span of 21 days from 1.9.2011 to
22.9.2011. Respondent No.2 agreed with the conclusion of the aforesaid F
officers. Respondent No.2 had not taken any decision. The decision
was taken by the Assessing Officer and the Additional Commissioner in
whom the power vested. They thought it fit to bring it to the notice of the
Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner and even the member involved
and to avoid/protect themselves from the mischievous complaints and G
since the appraisal report was sent by DGIT. Mr. Anil Agarwal had
circulated this note for the purpose of making false allegations against
respondent No.2 and the note that was submitted by DCIT, Additional
CIT, CIT and CCIT and the record of the discussion in the meeting had
been suppressed which indicated that respondent No.2 had concurred
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A with the aforesaid officials. The Record of Discussion in Minutes of the
meeting with Member (Inv) on 28.3.2014 by officers of CCIT, Central
Region, New Delhi, contained the following :
“4. The Hon’ble Member considered the material placed along
with background note and printout of accounts found in seized
B material and agreed with the view taken by field officers. He
agreed with the decision of not making addition on the issue
mentioned in Appraisal Report.
5. The Hon’ble Member also permitted that the discussion and
deliberations in the meeting may be recorded for reference purpose.
C Hence this Record of discussion in the meeting is prepared which
is signed by all present.”
76. The background note R2/20 and the detailed minutes of the
meeting R2/21 have been placed on record. Besides we have seen the
record pertaining to income-tax assessment of M/s. Flora and Fauna
D Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. contained in 7 folders. Folder
2 contains the correspondence of the officer with the superiors also
Directorate of I & CI, mainly on the alleged issue of Rs.234 crores.
Folder 3 contains background note for the meeting of the officers on
28.3.2014 and to apprise him of the decision taken by Assessing Officer
for not making the addition of alleged issue of Rs.234 crores. Folder 4
E contains notices issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, replies
etc. Approved assessment order submitted by A.O. to Additional
Commissioner for his approval. Approval was given by the Additional
Commissioner. Copies of the assessment orders and explanatory briefs
of record given by CBDT. In Folder 7 the aforesaid stand is fully
F substantiated by the document that has been placed on record.
77. It is apparent that the assessing officer has taken a decision
for not making addition and he wanted confirmation and the senior officers
considered the matter in detail and then background note was prepared
and record of discussion has been placed on record and that was agreed
G to by respondent No.2. He has not issued a direction as suggested on
behalf of the petitioners rather approval was sought by the assessing
officer as the stake was high and appraisal report was prepared by the
earlier DGIT level and she had considered it appropriate to seek the
approval so as to allay the apprehension of compliance in future. Thus
the facts make it clear that no impropriety has been committed by
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 945
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

respondent No.2 in the aforesaid factual background and the background A
on record and he has not directed the assessing officer to proceed in a
particular manner but rather various higher authorities had agreed with
the assessing officer and thereafter had put up the matter for discussion
with the respondent who had also agreed with them. In the facts of the
case, we find that allegation raised with respect to favour being meted
B
out to M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing & Land Development (P) Ltd. at
the instance of respondent No.2 has been considered by HSBC and not
at all substantiated from the material on record. As a matter of fact, full
facts have not been placed on record either by Mr. Anil Agrawal or
otherwise to make the position clear. It is apparent that Mr. Anil Agrawal
was making reckless allegations and was guilty of suppresio veri and C
suggestio falsi. It is apparent that no direction had been issued by
respondent No.2 for not making the addition. The said allegation levelled
by Mr. Anil Agrawal had been looked into by the concerned authorities
and no irregularity whatsoever was found.
78. The next aspersion cast upon respondent No.2 is with respect D
to the failure of respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against the
foreign bank account holders in HSBC Bank, Geneva for almost 3 years.
It was urged that no prompt action was taken by respondent No.2. Since
the formation of SIT the income tax department had not filed even a
single prosecution against HSBC account holders. It was contended by
learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 that the information E
regarding bank accounts held by the persons of Indian origin in HSBC,
Geneva was obtained by the Government (CBDT) from French
Government relating to approximately 628 persons around June 2011.
Out of them, 148 names relating to Delhi were passed on to DGIT,
Investigation, Delhi, the post held by respondent No.2. 66 searches were F
conducted in Delhi under respondent No.2 whereas total 140 searches
were undertaken across the country. The best results were achieved by
the Delhi Region. The Investigation Division prepared appraisal reports
and sent them to their assessing officers for further action such as
assessment of income, recovery of tax, levy of penalty, initiation of
prosecution proceedings in appropriate cases. It was also pointed out G
that respondent No.2 was the only DGIT (Investigation) who submitted
the proposal for the prosecution against the concerned foreign banks
and its Indian affiliates, and persons concerned. It was also contended
that yet respondent No.2 had closely monitored the investigation and
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A functions of other ITOs., followed up the cases by holding weekly
meetings, guidance, suggestions, interaction. Video conferencing were
also held. The information received from the French Government was
incomplete in most of the cases. When it became clear that there was
no possibility of getting further information the assessing officer could
go ahead with making assessment including the prosecution. Consent
B
waiver mechanism was devised by the respondent which was an
innovative action. He had obtained information in respect of 575 cases
which were hitherto not available to Indian authorities. The judicial
functions were to be exercised by the entire officers and the CBDT
only provides the necessary guidance and monitors the progress. About
C 121 prosecutions were launched by 31.3.2015 and some more were in
progress when the answering respondent left. The SIT had made the
following observations with respect to the action taken by respondent
No.2:
“This court through the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed
D by Hon’ble Justice Shri M.B. Shah (Retd.) and Hon’ble Justice
Shri Arijit Prasayat (Retd.). In this context, I only beg to submit
and bring to the notice of this Honourable Court the following
observations of the Hon’ble SIT in its 3rd Report :
“Shri K.V. Choudary Advisor to CBDT and Former Chairman,
E CBDT carried out detailed investigation and visited Paris in
December 2014. During the said visit, he met the French
authorities dealing with HSBC foreign accounts matters and
new lines/modes of investigation have been pursued. As a part
of such investigation, fresh references under Double Taxation
Avoidance Convention (DTAC) were made by bthe CBDT to
F France in 605 cases, requesting for additional information.
As a result of persistent follow-up, further information has
been received in 575 cases in the last week of February 2015.
Based upon new inputs (mostly in existing 624 cases), further
investigation is in progress. It has been observed that some of
G the cases which were hitherto not actionable may become
actionable as a result of such further investigations.”
79. It was also pointed out that vide letter dated 24.7.2015 R-2/
22, he was requested to assist the SIT even after taking charge of the
post of CVC.
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 947
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

80. Considering the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the A
petitioner that during the tenure of Mr. K.V.Chowdary nothing was
substantially done with respect to HSBC Bank is not at all substantiated.
Rather his functioning has been appreciated by the SIT as mentioned
above and his assistance has been sought even by the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner.
B
81. Next submission raised by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is with respect to the failure to make any headway, as he
failed to take action in the income-tax cases, in the 2G scam, unlike the
CBI or Enforcement Directorate filed several charge-sheets. The
averment in this regard in the petition is in the passing form and is vague.
Apart from that, no specific instance has been given in which case there C
was a failure on the part of respondent No.2. That apart respondent
No.2 had made it clear that during the tenure from 1.11.2010 to August
2012 he had taken up the case of Unitech Ltd. whose associates and
their sister concern had been granted licences and few other cases of
telecom company were investigated and few connected cases of telecom D
companies were also under investigation for other charges. All necessary
investigation was carried out and aforesaid findings were communicated
in due time to the Assessing Officer who took appropriate action. Cases
of other telecom companies under the jurisdiction of DGIT, Bombay,
Chennai, Bengaluru etc. Respondent No.2 as a nodal agency coordinated
and made several representations as to the action taken by the income- E
tax department before a Joint Parliamentary Committee. It could not be
pointed out in which particular matter respondent No.2 was found lacking.
Thus the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners is too tenuous to
be accepted. It was never pointed out to this Court that there was laxity
on the part of respondent No.2 when the aforesaid matter C.A. No.10660/ F
2010 was listed in this Court.
82. The last aspersion cast is with respect to Radia Tapes, the
inaction of respondent No.2 of not taking action against the concerned
incumbents. Details of action which were required and could have been
taken have not been given in the petition thus no specific averment has G
been made in this regard by the petitioners. When we consider the reply
it is apparent that respondent No.2 was DGIT Investigation and he joined
on 1.11.2010 by which time surveillance of Ms. Nira Radia was over
and some intercepts relating to such surveillance were in public domain
due to leakage probably in May-June, 2010. When he had taken over as
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A DGIT (Investigation) in November 2010 actionable issues were identified
and necessary action was taken either by the Delhi Directorate or was
communicated to the Directorates for further action. The information
was duly shared with the Assessing Officers and other law enforcing
agencies such as CBI, ED etc. The matter was before this Court in
Public Interest Litigation (PIL). None of the authorities ever found any
B
shortcoming or inaction on the part of respondent No.2 on this count. It
was also not urged before the Court by aforesaid PIL of 2010 whenever
it was listed.
83. Apart from that, it has also been pointed out by respondent
No.2 that in the petition with respect to APAR of respondent No.2 false
C averments have been made, that adverse remarks were made by three
senior officers of CBDT. The allegation has been termed to be baseless
and unfounded and misleading. In the 36 years of service, not even a
single remark has been made in the APAR. All the remarks had been
based on record as in the form of compendium R-2/1. There is no adverse
D remark in them. Thus the petition suffers from wrong averments also.
Thus, it is apparent that against respondent No.2 unsubstantiated
allegations have been made.
84. This Court in Centre for PIL (supra) held while examining
the appointment of Mr. P.J. Thomas. The CVC had observed with respect
E to the parameters of judicial review in such matters of appointment thus:
“59. It was held by this Court in R.K. Jain case (1993) 4 SCC
119 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent
possessed requisite qualification for appointment and the manner
in which the appointment came to be made or the procedure
F adopted was fair, just and reasonable. When a candidate was
found qualified and eligible and is accordingly appointed by the
executive to hold an office as a Member or Vice President or
President of a Tribunal, in judicial review the Court cannot sit
over the choice of the selection. It is for the executive to select
the personnel as per law or procedure. Shri Harish Chandra was
G the Senior Vice President at the relevant time. The question of
comparative merit which was the key contention of the Petitioner
could not be gone into in a PIL; that the writ petition was not a
writ of quo warranto and in the circumstances, the writ petition
came to be dismissed.
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 949
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

60. It was held in R.K. Jain case (supra) that even assuming for A
the sake of arguments that the allegations made by the Petitioner
were factually accurate, still, this Court cannot sit in judgment
over the choice of the person made by the Central Government
for appointment as a President of CEGAT so long as the person
chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise
B
eligible for appointment. It was held that this Court cannot interfere
with the appointment of Shri Harish Chandra as the President of
CEGAT on the ground that his track record was poor or because
of adverse reports on which account his appointment as a High
Court Judge had not materialized.
61. In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto (2010) 9 SCC C
655 the appointment of Shri Hari Bansh Lal as Chairman,
Jharkhand State Electricity Board stood challenged on the ground
that the board had been constituted in an arbitrary manner; that
Shri Hari Bansh Lal was a person of doubtful integrity; that he
was appointed as a Chairman without following the rules and D
procedure and in the circumstances the appointment stood
challenged. On the question of maintainability, the Division Bench
of this Court held that a writ of quo warranto lies only when the
appointment is contrary to a statutory provision.
62. It was further held in Hari Bansh Lal case that “suitability” E
of a candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the
appointing authority and not by the court unless the appointment
is contrary to the statutory rules/provisions. It is important to note
that this Court went into the merits of the case and came to the
conclusion that there was no adequate material to doubt the
integrity of Shri Hari Bansh Lal who was appointed as the F
Chairperson of Jharkhand State Electricity Board. This Court
further observed that in the writ petition there was no averment
saying that the appointment was contrary to statutory provisions.
63. As stated above, we need to keep in mind the difference
between judicial review and merit review. As stated above, in this G
case, the judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the
decision-making process undertaken by the HPC in terms of the
proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act. If one carefully examines
the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (supra)
the facts indicate that the High Court had sat in appeal over the H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A personal integrity of the Chairman and Members of the Haryana
Public Service Commission in support of the collateral attack on
the selections made by the State Public Service Commission. In
that case, the High Court had failed to keep in mind the difference
between judicial and merit review. Further, this Court found that
the appointments of the Chairperson and Members of Haryana
B
Public Service Commission was in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution. In that case, there was no issue as to the
legality of the decision-making process. On the contrary the last
sentence of para 9 supports our above reasoning when it says
that it is always open to the Court to set aside the decision
C (selection) of the Haryana Public Service Commission if such
decision is vitiated by the influence of extraneous
considerations or if such selection is made in breach of the statute
or the rules.
64. Even in R.K. Jain’s case (supra), this Court observed vide
D para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the
incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the
manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether
procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We reiterate
that Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice
made but Government is accountable to the courts in respect of
E the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the
judicial review jurisdiction. We do not wish to multiply the
authorities on this point.”
85. That judicial determination is confined to the integrity of the
decision making process by the HPC. That the difference between judicial
F and merit review, the legality of decision-making process can also be
looked into. If the decision is influenced by extraneous considerations or
selection is made in breach of the statute or rules, it can be set aside.
The Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made
but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the
G lawfulness/legality of its decisions.
86. In the case of Mr. P.J.Thomas, CVC, it was a binding criminal
proceeding under the P.C. Act and between the period of 2001 and 2004
the DoPT had recommended the disciplinary proceeding against Mr.
P.J.Thomas in respect of Palmolein case. The pendency of the case
H before the Special Judge under the P.C. act was not taken into
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 951
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

consideration as well as the observations made by this Court in A
K.Karunakaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 761 in which
an FIR against Mr. Karunakaran and others including that of Mr. Thomas
was held not to be the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous
considerations. This Court observed that the menace of corruption could
not be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities and
B
the probe conducted has to be determined in accordance with law. In
the aforesaid background, the recommendation made by the HPC was
held to be non-est in law.
87. Three representations/complaints were received against Mr.
K.V.Chowdary. The PMO had asked for details of the allegations so as
to ascertain the facts contained in the representations filed against C
Mr.Chowdary. Complaints of Mr.Chowdary were placed before the
Committee. Factual inputs on opinion were received with respect to the
various aspects in representation from various agencies like CBI,
Information Bureau, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and
were placed before the HPC which considered all the allegations against D
all shortlisted candidates. No complaint was received against Mr.
T.M.Bhasin. Requisite clearances were given by the IB with respect to
Mr. K.V.Chowdary and Mr. T.M.Bhasin. With respect to the allegations,
separate inputs were obtained and placed before the Committee. There
was nothing adverse found.
E
On following issues the comments were called :
POINT NO.(I)
88. Mr. Chowdary’s name figured in the list of visitors who visited
his official residence. The inputs on the aforesaid aspects were called
from the IB and CBI. No adverse comment was made. Apart from that, F
it was pointed out that the matter was sub judice in this Court regarding
Mr. Ranjit Sinha. However as already discussed, no insinuation could be
cast upon Mr. Chowdary due to aforesaid visits.
POINT NO. (II)
G
89. With respect to Stock Guru scam, the CBI reported that
investigation did not reveal the involvement of Mr. Chowdary.
POINT NO. (III)
90. With regard to issue No.(iii), investigation of hawala dealer
Mr. Moin Qureshi, the comments of Department of Revenue, Ministry H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A of Finance were obtained as well as inputs from IB and CBI. The IB
has given input that Mr. Moin Qureshi’s link with Mr. Chowdary could
not be confirmed. The Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
opined that the allegations made against Mr. Chowdary were found
absolutely misplaced. The petition of Mr. Qureshi filed before the
Settlement Commission was opposed by the Income Tax Department.
B
As a result, the same was dismissed. Even before completion of the
assessment, the prosecution under section 277 of IT Act and sections
181, 177, 193, 196, 120B read with section 23 were launched against
Mr. Qureshi.
POINT NO. (IV)
C
91. With respect to Radia tapes, the Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance opined that the opinion of the authorities has found
no fault with Mr. Chowdary. Allegations against him were factually
incorrect and baseless. IB has opined that the allegations could not be
established in the course of the discreet inquiry. The CBI also found
D nothing adverse against Mr. Chowdary in 2G scam cases or Radia tapes
consequent upon the order dated 21.2.2013 of this Court.
POINT NO.(V)
92. The allegation that the In-charge of the 2G scam investigation
E Mr. Chowdary failed to make any headway in the case, it was opined by
the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance that none of the
authorities i.e. Supreme Court, Central Vigilance Commission, Joint
Parliamentary Committee, Public Accounts Committee before whom
the DGIT presented periodical reports, found any shortcoming or
deficiencies. Mr. Chowdary, who was working as DGIT (Inv.), took
F necessary steps to have 2G cases falling under his jurisdiction investigated
expeditiously and properly. The charges levelled in the complaint were
found baseless and incorrect. IB input was that black money cases came
to a fast track after the constitution of SIT. The CBI did not report
anything against Mr. Chowdary.
G POINT NO. (VI)
93. As to the allegation of HSBC account holders investigation, it
was pointed out that Mr. Chowdary had monitored investigation in 445
cases of HSBC foreign accounts and the best results were achieved in
Delhi cases as compared to other Directorates. Mr. Chowdary pointed
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 953
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

out illegal banking activities in HSBC, Geneva, and proposed prosecution A
of HSBC Geneva. He closely monitored and followed up these cases.
The allegation that no progress was made was found wrong. When SIT
was formed in May-June, 2014 by that time investigation in most of the
cases was already at the advanced stage. IB had given the input in this
regard that though much progress was not made earlier but after the
B
constitution of SIT, it was on fast track.
POINT NO. (VII)
94. With respect to adverse remarks in the performance appraisal
reports by three senior officers of CBDT, the Department of Revenue
has forwarded a summary of annual CRs. from November 1978 to C
February 2014 which was placed on record and that nothing adverse
was found. IB also made the input that the allegation could not be
corroborated in the course of discreet inquiries.
POINT NO. (VIII)
95. Mr. Chowdary wrongfully reduced the undeclared wealth of D
M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., a company of
Mr. Ponty Chadha by over Rs.200 crores. The allegations were found
to be absolutely baseless by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance. IB had also placed its inputs regarding the allegation and adoption
of the procedure. It was, however, opined that he enjoyed good personal E
and professional image. Nothing adverse against his character or integrity
has come to notice. The allegation about M/s. Flora and Fauna Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd., was mentioned but no adverse comment was
made.
POINT NO. (IX) F
96. As per the complaint received from Anil Kumar Agrawal of
forming a nexus between the income tax officers and trying to conceal
the undisclosed income of relative of a Minister, Department of Revenue
opined that it was a motivated complaint and the complainant did not
substantiate it despite three reminders hence it was closed.
G
POINT NO.X
97. As to the complaint by Anil Kumar Agrawal regarding
corruption charges in connection with income tax raids on M/s. Raj Mahal
Jewellers and protection to Mr. Gaurav Dudeja, DDIT (Inv.), the complaint
was closed and it was not found substantiated. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A POINT NO.XI
98. Regarding complaint by Mr. H.R.V. Rao forwarded by one of
the Members of Parliament against Mr. Chowdary, parked crores in
amassing properties in his families/relatives names, the Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance opined that several verification letters were
B sent to the complainant and concerned Member of Parliament no
response was received from them. Thus, the complaint was ultimately
closed as it was not substantiated.
POINT NO.XII
99. The complaint was received from CVC with respect to
C interception of Rs.12.30 crores during U.P. elections and the differences
between Member (Investigation) and Member (L&C). The Department
of Revenue, Ministry of Finance opined that the allegations were examined
thoroughly. The allegations made were baseless. There was no merit or
substance in the complaint. The matter was referred to CVC for closure
D with the approval of Finance Minister. CVC had advised closure of the
complaint on 14.7.2014.
POINT NO. XIII
100. As to the complaint from Advocate, R.K. Bansal to CVC
vide office memorandum dated 7.10.2013 inter alia referring to Stock
E Guru scam and senior officers of ITO, Investigation Wing, regarding
misappropriation of Rs.42-44 crores and that Mr. Chowdary did not share
the information with the investigating agencies.
101. The comments by Department of Revenue Ministry of
Finance disclosed that the CBI had lodged the FIR in the matter, the
F name of Mr. Chowdary did not appear in the FIR nor any communication
received from the CBI. The findings were referred to the CVC with the
recommendation to close the complaint against Mr. Chowdary with the
approval of Finance Minister. CVC advised closure of the complaint. IB
also opined there was no formal investigation against Mr. Chowdary.
G 102. In reference to complaint about Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal
regarding administrative misuse and involving income tax raids conducted
at M/s. Iryan Coal during April 2012, the Department of Revenue pointed
out that there was no infirmity in the search and seizure operations.

H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 955
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

103. The allegation of nexus with the office of Investigation Wing A
was found baseless. The matter was referred to CVC. CVC had advised
closure of the complaint.
104. Thus, each and every aspect and information had been placed
before the High Power Committee when the decision was taken. Thus,
the integrity of the decision-making process has not impinged in this B
case in any manner whatsoever. Neither the decision taken to appoint
respondent No.2 as CVC can be said to be suffering from any illegality.
The decision cannot be said to be influenced by extraneous considerations
and the choice made of Mr. Chowdary cannot be said to be such which
is amenable for interference by the court in judicial review.
C
IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.3 :
105. With respect to the appointment of respondent No.3, Mr.
T.M.Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has urged that since his criminal prosecution was ordered,
ultimately it was not fructified. However, on the administrative side, he D
was severely indicted for fabricating/forging the APAR of Mr. Malay
Mukherjee, General Manager and was cautioned. Thus, in view of the
order passed in the serious background, it could not be said that person
who was accused of fabricating/forging APAR was a person of
impeccable integrity fit to hold the office of Vigilance Commissioner of
an integrity institution of this country. E

106. The backdrop facts of the aforesaid order of caution unfold
that Mr. Malay Mukherjee was General Manager of Indian Bank. His
APAR for 2009-2010 was required to be written. He had not served
under respondent No.3 Mr.T.M.Bhasin. Mr.T.M.Bhasin was not reporting
officer but was reviewing authority in the capacity of CMD of Indian F
Bank. The predecessor CMD had admittedly retired on 31.3.2010 and
as provided in Rule 7 of All India Services Performance and Appraisal
Report, Rules, 2007, retired official could review the performance of
appraisee within one month from the date of his retirement. Mr.
Sundarrajan, former CMD is said to have signed APAR on 7.7.2010 G
after more than three months which he could not have done. Be that as
it may. Even if he did it unauthorizedly or irregularly such APAR was
not found on an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department of the
office. The courier sent by Mr. Malay Mukherjee from zonal office was
sent to Bhopal related to some other matter and was not received by the
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A Head Office. Even if we ignore the aforesaid aspect question arises
whether Mr. T.M.Bhasin has fabricated or forged the APAR of Mr.
Malay Mukharjee from excellent to average. Whether it was mentioned
to be outstanding by Mr.Sundarrajan.
107. Letter dated 4.11.2010 was issued by the Department of
B Financial Services to send the APAR of eligible General Managers for
selection as Executive Director by 15.11.2010 on urgent basis. It was
received on 10.11.2010 by respondent No.3. The relevant APAR of Mr.
Malay Mukherji duly apprised by Mr. Ram Gopal, Executive Director
was received on 15.11.2010. Respondent No.3 as reviewing authority
concurred with the average grading done by Mr. V.Ram Gopal, Executive
C Director. It was sent to the F.S. in compliance.
108. Since Mr. Malay Mukherjee claimed that he had sent APAR
dated 7.7.2010 for the period 2009-10 signed by Mr. Sundarrajan, former
CMD on 29.7.2010 and the matter travelled to the Central Vigilance
Commission. One of the members out of the three opined that the CBI
D may be asked for a criminal investigation into the matter. However, the
majority view was not to investigate the matter on criminal side but only
the Chief Vigilance Commissioner may call for certain documents/
information from the Chief Vigilance Officer/DFS to ascertain and come
to the final conclusion. The view of CVC and VC prevailed being the
E majority view as per section 9(4) of the Act of 2003. Thus, nothing could
be made out by the petitioners on the basis of the observations of VC(S).
Later on, follow up was taken in view of the majority view. The Chief
Vigilance Commissioner and the Department of Financial Services stated
that there was no conclusive evidence against Mr. Ram Gopal and
respondent No. 3 even to hold a regular departmental inquiry.
F
109. Later on, memorandum dated 6.9.2013 was received from
the DFS seeking his clarification on the subject matter. Respondent No.3
submitted a written explanation with annexures running in 162 pages
and pointed out that in the past there were 14 such cases when succeeding
CMDs. had submitted APAR when reviewing APAR when officers
G have not worked under him. Thus no action against him was warranted.
He had not violated any guidelines. The notings of Chief Vigilance
Commissioner dated 31.3.2014, 28.4.2014 and 6.5.2014 are extracted
hereunder :
“The Extract of the official file notings dated 28.04.2014, on the
H observations of the Advisor by Vigilance Commissioner, Shri Rajiv
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 957
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

and that of Central Vigilance Commissioner is given hereunder : A
VC (R) noted “matter may be closed. It is more of an
administrative nature and not exactly a vigilance issue”
110. The CVC had also concurred with the VC and made the
following notings :
B
“I am in agreement with VC (R) that writing of APAR and its
review is essentially an administrative matter. However, in this
case, it had acquired vigilance overtones due to allegations of
tampering of APAR. DFS, after the inquiry, has come to the
conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the most
crucial charge of tampering with the APAR of Shri Malay C
Mukherjee. I am inclined to agree with DFS in this respect. DFS
has however pointed out that Shri Bhasin wrote the APAR of
2009-10, without having overseen the work of Mr. Malay Mukerjee.
Shri Bhasin, in his defense, has cited past precedents. DFS has
also conceded the need to have uniform guidelines in Banks to D
avoid such confusions and inconsistencies. However, DFS has
considered it unethical on the part of Shri Bhasin to have written
‘Average’ at two places. For this Shri Bhasin may be cautioned
and the case closed as proposed by VC (R).”
111. After receipt of the reply, no case was found against him of E
tampering or forging. The matter was taken up at the highest level. He
was cautioned which did not amount to any penalty. No inquiry was held
after the reply was sent by respondent No.3. It was opined by the DFS
in its letter dated 10.3.2014, Annexure R-3 that average is not sufficient.
In para 9 it was mentioned that average is not sufficient to prove the
charge of tampering. At the most, it may be unethical to write average in F
view of the average grading. However, the marks received 53 out of
100 correspond to average grading. However, Mr. Bhasin has not
overseen the work of Mr. Malay Mukherjee. However, Mr. Ram Gopal
had overseen the work of Mr. Malay Mukherjee. So having written the
APAR by Respondent No.3, he has not violated any guidelines. The G
Department has taken up the issue and the same was issued in due
course. As such the departmental action against respondent No.3 or
against Mr. Ram Gopal was not warranted. Same has been accepted. It
is clear that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner had closed the matter on
8.5.2014 and advised DFS to issue caution letter to respondent No.3. In
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.

A the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any
punishment, major or minor, inflicted upon respondent No.3. He tried to
justify his action that though he did not oversee the functioning, he was
justified in writing APAR but so far as fabrication and forgery are
concerned, no finding has been recorded against respondent No.3 with
respect to the APAR for 2009-2010 by any formal order on the
B
administrative side. Thus, his integrity is not going to be affected in the
aforesaid factual matrix. When the APAR purportedly written by Mr.
Sundarrajan was not available and its claimed dispatch on 29.7.2010
was not relating to the APAR. Be that as it may. There is no finding
recorded against respondent No.3 either by the Chief Vigilance
C Commissioner or the DFS in any manner whatsoever so as to impinge
adversely upon his integrity, necessary for such an institution of Vigilance
Commission. Apart from that, no representation was filed against
respondent No.3. However, this aspect was dealt with and was
mentioned in the report which was submitted before the HPC. Thus,
there was nothing against the integrity of respondent No.3 so as to hold
D
that the recommendation with respect to him was illegal and void and
entire material was placed before the HPC.
112. Thus, in our considered opinion the recommendation made
of Mr. Bhasin cannot be said to be suffering from procedural infirmity in
decision making. The integrity of the procedure has been maintained.
E Though there was no complaint the aforesaid aspect which has been
urged on behalf of the petitioners was looked into by the High Power
Committee on the basis of inputs made. Thus, nothing adverse was found
in the final conclusion in the matter of writing of APAR of Mr. Malay
Mukherjee. Thus, we find that no case is made out with respect to the
F appointment of respondent No.3 as Vigilance Commissioner to make
interference in judicial parameters.
113. We have not interfered with the appointments. The complaints
against Mr. Chowdary were made and they were looked into. It is not
for this Court to decide on the choice. We are nowadays in the scenario
G that such complaints cannot be taken on face value. Even against very
honest persons, allegations can be made. Those days have gone when
filing of the complaints was taken as serious aspersions on integrity.
Ideally, there should not be any serious complaint as the filing of same
raises eyebrows. As in the instant matter, complaints have been looked
into and we decline to interfere.
H
COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) v. UNION OF INDIA 959
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]

114. Resultantly, we find no grounds to quash the appointment of A
Respondent No.2 as CVC and respondent No.3 as VC. Writ Petitions
are disposed of accordingly.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Writ Petitions disposed of.
B

C

D

E

F

G

H