Government promotion and posting decisions cannot support vigilance enquiry without concrete material showing corruption or criminal misconduct.
A complaint attacking a governmental promotion and posting decision was treated as a challenge to an administrative or policy matter, not as material disclosing corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court noted that no specific allegation of illegal gratification, undue advantage, pecuniary gain, dishonest misappropriation, or any other statutory ingredient of corruption or criminal misconduct had been made. A mere claim that another officer should have been preferred was insufficient to justify vigilance enquiry or criminal process. The forwarding order for preliminary enquiry was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the complaint rejected as not disclosing any offence.
Issues: Whether the order forwarding the complaint for preliminary enquiry and possible registration of crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act was liable to be set aside, and whether a complaint attacking a governmental promotion and posting decision disclosed any actionable corruption or criminal misconduct.
Analysis: The complaint related to a collective governmental decision granting promotion and making a posting, which was essentially an administrative and policy matter within the Government's prerogative. The materials did not disclose any specific allegation of illegal gratification, undue advantage, pecuniary gain, dishonest misappropriation, or other ingredients of corruption or criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A mere allegation that a different officer ought to have been preferred, or that the Government chose one officer over others, could not by itself justify criminal enquiry under the Act. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was therefore available to correct the subordinate court's jurisdictional error in mechanically forwarding the complaint for enquiry.
Conclusion: The forwarding order was unsustainable and was set aside. The complaint was rejected as being baseless and not disclosing any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Conclusion: Administrative or policy decisions of the Government cannot be subjected to vigilance enquiry or prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless the complaint and materials disclose a specific offence of corruption or criminal misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint challenging a governmental administrative or policy decision is not maintainable for vigilance investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless it discloses concrete material showing the statutory ingredients of corruption or criminal misconduct.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
