The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition with cost of Rs 25,000/ held that once the complaint had been considered in detail by the Full Bench of Lokpal of India and the same had also been rejected then the said finding of fact cannot be generally looked into and examined by the writ court.
It is well settled that on behalf of a complainant, a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Jhamman Singh.
By means of the petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by respondent no 6 in complaint No 2132/2022 filed by petitioner.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no 2 to take appropriate action against respondent no 5 in terms of Audit Inspection Report dated 28.10.2022.
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent corporation to undo all the illegal action taken by respondent no 5 (during his reign from 2016 to 2022) in the matter of appointment and promotion to the undeserving candidates in terms of Audit Inspection Report dated 28.10.2022.”
The Court observed that,
It appears from the record that the “Bharat Immunological and Biological Corporation Limited” is a Public Sector Undertakings of Government of India, which was established in the year 1989 in District Bulandshahr.
The petitioner claims to be an employee of the Corporation. He is also a member and Secretary of the Union working for the welfare of its members and the Corporation.
The petitioner has moved a complaint before the Lokpal of India against the General Manager, Company Secretary & Assistant General Manager (AGM) of the Corporation, alleging therein that the AGM/Company Secretary had been involved in many irregularities of illegal appointments, undue promotions and also approving sub-standard quality of polio vaccines and taking reimbursement on the basis of fake taxi bills.
The said complaint was registered as Complaint and Full Bench of Lokpal of India vide order dated 06.05.2022 had proceeded to dispose of the said complaint directing the respondent no 1 to look into the complaint of the union for conducting an enquiry and taking further necessary action in the matter.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had moved another complaint dated 01.05.2022 before Lokpal of India registered, the cognizance was taken by the Chairman and six other members. Finally, the complaint was rejected by detailed order of Full Bench of Lokpal of India vide order dated 10.08.2023.
The Court noted that,
The Court have proceeded to examine the record in question and also perused the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Full Bench of Lokpal of India, whereby the complaint of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no mala fide or wrongdoings have been noticed against the concerned public servants associated with procurement of bulk OPV for BIPCOL. The Full Bench had recorded a categorical finding that the allegation against the AGM/Company Secretary, who has claimed taxi bills for his private vehicle could not be substantiated during the course of enquiry and the allegation regarding alleged irregularities in appointment/promotion of RPS-4 also could not be substantiated during the course of enquiry. The Full Bench further observed that BIBCOL is involved in very sensitive and important work regarding procurement of bulk OPV, which is the backbone for the programme of Polio eradication in the country and therefore, it is necessary that procurement and supply of bulk OPV is done in a fool-proof method and the process for the same is to be streamlined.
The Court dismissed the petition with cost of Rs 25,000/- which may be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks from today in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, failing which the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr is directed to recover the cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.