(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present application was preferred by the Union of India for modification of the order dated 15.7.2011 for substitution of the Member/Chairman of Special Investigation Team (SIT) in place of Mr.J.V. Ramudu. On the aspects of substitution of the officer being Chairman of SIT, the subject is already dealt with by the earlier orders and Mr.R.R. Verma was appointed vide order dated 19.7.2011 and thereafter, the said SIT has already submitted the final report and the aspect to that extent is completed and, therefore, we need not deal with the same in detail.
The only aspect now to be considered is in light of the direction given by this Court vide paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the order dated 19.7.2011 to consider further orders on account of prima facie observations of this Court for casual approach on the part of the Union of India in nominating its officers.
We have heard Mr.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General.
Before we consider the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 19.7.2011 at paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, which reads as under:-
"15. However, before parting with, we find it proper to take serious note of the way in which the officers were earlier nominated by the Union of India and more particularly the last nomination of Mr.J.V.Ramudu, IPS (AP : 81). We need not reproduce the assurance given on behalf of the Central Government as the same is already a part of the record of the order dated 15.07.2011. But prima facie, it appears that Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, acted on the instructions received by him vide communication dated 14.07.2011 which was tendered to the Court at the relevant point of time addressed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India to Mr.Champaneri and as recorded in paragraph 6 of the earlier order dated 15.07.2011, before making statement, the instructions were conveyed to Mr.Champaneri telephonically by the Joint Secretary, the very officer who is signatory of the said communication Mr.Diptivilasa. The another pertinent aspect is that in the very communication dated 14.07.2011, at paragraph 3, there is a note that the communication has the approval of the competent authority in this Ministry which normally may be the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India.
16. If there is a casual approach ultimately found by this Court or any attempt to mislead this Court, it would attract further serious action in this regard. We hardly need to record that the sanctity of the proceedings and orders of this Court are required to be respected by one and all and the first it should come from the Union of India which is a Union Government. If the sanctity of the proceedings before a constitutional court is not maintained by the Union of India, it would stake democratic structure itself of the nation. In our prima facie view, in order to see that nobody is allowed to have foul play with the Court proceedings or any callous or casual approach in the matter, this Court will have no option but to maintain the authority of the Court and stern action may be called for.
17. However, before taking further decision in this regard, we find it proper to give opportunity to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Joint Secretary, Mr. Diptivilasa to submit their written explanation separately with the documentary proof thereof about the process of file stagewise and the vacuum if any during the period in the said movement of the file and the communications thereof. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs shall also in the said affidavit report to this Court about any remedial measure if the Government of India is desirous to take."
The aforesaid shows that this Court observed that if there is casual approach ultimately found by this Court or any attempt to mislead this Court, it would attract further serious action in this regard. Therefore, we need to find out as to whether there was any casual approach or any attempt to mislead this Court by the Union of India in nominating the officer or not.
The aforesaid order further shows that the explanation was to be submitted by the Joint Secretary, Mr.Diptivilasa with the documentary proof thereof about the process of the file stage-wise and the vacuum, if any, during the period in the said movement of the file and the communications thereof. Further, the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs was also directed to file the report on affidavit to this Court as to whether any remedial measure was required or not and whether any measure has been taken or not.
On the second aspect for the remedial measure the affidavit has been filed by Shri U.K. Bansal, Secretary (Internal Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the remedial measure by way of issuing Office Order dated 29.7.2011 undertaken by Government of India has been annexed and as per the said Office Order, it has been communicated to all the officers, including Joint Secretary (P-I) (Shri D Diptivilasa). The said order reads as under:-
" It has come to notice that in certain cases where nominations of IPS Officers are required to be forwarded to sensitive Organizations, Commission of enquiry, other independent agencies etc., adequate and timely steps are not taken to ascertain the availability and willingness of officers for such deputation. In such cases the nominations are expected to be forwarded to the concerned organizations/agencies by stipulated dates and therefore while seeking the availability and willingness of the officers from the concerned State Governments, date lines should invariably be indicated so that the Government of India would be able to meet the requirements of the concerned Departments/Agencies in time.
2. The above procedure should be scrupulously followed by all concerned officers/officials of Police-I Division of this Ministry and any lapse on this count would be viewed seriously and action taken accordingly."
In our view, if the contents are considered, it can be said that the remedial measure has been undertaken by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and, therefore, to that extent it can be said that the observations made by this Court have been complied with.
However, on the first part of the order for any casual approach or misleading to this Court, the affidavit has been filed by Mr.D. Diptivilasa, Joint Secretary (Police-I), Ministry of Home Affairs and the affidavit of Shri Bansal, Secretary (Internal Security) also deals with the said aspects in part. In the affidavit dated 4.8.2011 filed by Mr.D. Diptivilasa, Joint Secretary, at para 10 it has been, inter alia, stated as under:-
"10. ... After sending a fax message to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the matter, the officer concerned in the State Government was also telephonically contacted to expedite their concurrence for the nomination. This was followed up by making telephonic calls on 13.7.2011 to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Andhra Pradesh. It was informed, at that time, that the subject was dealt with by Principal Secretary (Political), Government of Andhra Pradesh, who, on being contacted, informed the deponent telephonically that the file had been submitted for the approval of the Competent Authority and he was confident that this would be soon available. On account of this verbal assurance from a Senior Officer of the State Government and since the name of Shri J.V. Ramudu has been earlier included in the May panel, it was felt appropriate to include his name in the panel of officers to be sent to the Hon'ble High Court. Even at this stage, the State Government did not inform the Government of India regarding the medical condition of Shri J.V. Ramudu."
Further, Mr.D. Diptivilasa, Joint Secretary, at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the affidavit, has , inter alia, stated as under:-
"19. That while having highest regard for the Hon'ble High Court, no efforts were spared to identify a suitable officer for nomination to the panel by making repeated efforts in the form of letters and telephonic calls to the respective State Governments.
20. That the deponent has the highest regard to the Hon'ble High Court and sanctity of its proceedings, besides having highest respect for its orders. It appears, in the anxiety of informing the Hon'ble High Court of the officers likely to be available or who had been identified, certain critical steps such as willingness or otherwise of the officer and their immediate availability could not be obtained in writing, for which the deponent express his deepest and unconditional apology."
In the affidavit of Shri Bansal, Secretary (I.S.) at paragraph 5, it has been stated, inter alia, as under:-
"5. ...
In the case of Shri J.V. Ramudu, at no point of time, till 15.7.2011, either the officer or the Government of Andhra Pradesh had brought to the notice of Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) the non-availability of Shri J.V. Ramudu for taking up the work in SIT on account of ill-health. The reported medical condition of the officer was brought to the notice of the Ministry of Home Affairs only after he was nominated as the Chairman, SIT by the Hon'ble Court on 15.7.2011."
It has been further stated at paragraph 6, inter alia, as under:-
"6. ... The backing out of Shri Ramudu on health grounds was an unfortunate event and there was no intentional laxity on the part of the Union of India in identifying suitable officers. However, as this episode has caused inconvenience both to the Hon'ble Court and the SIT team investigating the case and consumed valuable time and energy of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent expresses his sincere and unconditional apology for the same."
In order to examine the genuineness of the aforesaid explanation before accepting the unconditional apology, we had found it proper to call the original file of the Government of India. It does appear from the noting that the inclusion of Shri J.V. Ramudu in the panel was made by Joint Secretary (Police-I) together with the other officers and the same was approved by the highest authority i.e. Home Minister. It further appears that thereafter in the noting dated 18.7.2011 submitted by Shri D. Diptivilasa, Joint Secretary (Police-I), at paragraph 5, he was given to understand that the competent authority had approved the nomination of Shri Ramudu for SIT. The aforesaid noting has been approved by Secretary (I.S.), but while considering the note for approval, the Home Minister has observed, thus:-
"We should have been more careful and diligent in handling this matter. J.S. (P.I) may be advised to be more diligent."
It appears that thereafter the present application has been filed on 19.7.2011 for modification of the name of the officer.
The examination of the aforesaid, in our view, can be looked at from two angles; one is that the genuineness of the explanation submitted for conveying the name of Shri J.V. Ramudu for inclusion in SIT by Government of India and another is whether such could be termed as vigilant or a casual approach. Since, the explanation so submitted is getting support of the notings made in the file dated 18.7.2011, we find that the Joint Secretary (Police-1) had acted, since he was given to understand that the competent authority had approved the nomination of Shri J.V. Ramudu for SIT.
But the fact remains that approval was not there at the relevant point of time of the State Government. It is on account of the said communication through the Principal Secretary (Political), Shri Gonela, the Joint Secretary (Police-1) of Union of India, Mr.Diptivilasa acted. Under these facts situation, we find it proper to accept the explanation for giving name of Shri Ramudu to this Court for inclusion of the name in SIT in place of Dr. Satyapal Singh, since it could not be said as an attempt to mislead. But in view of the notings made by the Home Minister of Government of India, we find that the matter should be left to the competent authority of the Government of India i.e. Secretary, Home Ministry to inquire as to whether the approach of the concerned Joint Secretary (Police-1) in relying upon such information could be termed as acting in bonafide or a casual one after giving opportunity in accordance with law to the concerned officer.
Hence, subject to the aforesaid observations, no further orders deserve to be passed in the present application. Hence, disposed of accordingly.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) FURTHER ORDER The original file of Government of India is returned to Mr.Champaneri, Assistant Solicitor General, Government of India, since the order is already pronounced.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) vinod Top