Anand Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that if the complaint lodged by the petitioners had not been taken to its logical conclusion, the concerned respondents were directed to conclude it as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of production of a copy of the order. The Court clarified that this direction was not for initiating any new complaint if one had not already begun. If a complaint had been registered and an in-house inquiry had commenced, it ought to be completed in the larger interest of the Department and society. The Court did not explicitly address the maintainability or the vindictive action argument but proceeded to direct the conclusion of the inquiry, implying that the delay did not bar the consideration of the complaint's conclusion. The issue of whether a formal inquiry was initiated or if the complaint was consigned was not definitively resolved by the materials presented.

Facts

The petitioners, brothers of respondent no. 10, filed a complaint on April 4, 2016, alleging that respondent no. 10 had fraudulently obtained compassionate appointment in 2010 following the death of their mother. A reminder was sent on May 4, 2016. The petitioners submitted their complaint to the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) of the Directorate General of Vigilance contacted petitioner no. 1 to confirm the complaint and request further documentary evidence. No further communication between the petitioners and the Vigilance Department is recorded. The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents to conclude the inquiry initiated on their complaint.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the delay in lodging the complaint regarding an appointment made in 2010, and whether it constitutes a vindictive action by the petitioners? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to know the outcome of their complaint concerning a fraudulent compassionate appointment, particularly in the interest of transparency? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/s: Submitted that in the current era of transparency, they are entitled to know the result of their complaint regarding an alleged fraudulent compassionate appointment. Revenue/State: Raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the complaint was lodged in 2016 for an appointment made in 2010, suggesting vindictive action. Contended that court proceedings should not be used to resolve such disputes and that challenging the appointment earlier or before an appropriate forum would have been the correct course. Argued that issuing a notice now would unnecessarily interfere with the department's functioning.