Court upholds order, no bias found. Deputy Director had jurisdiction. Writ petitions dismissed, appeal advised.

The Court held that the impugned order did not violate principles of natural justice as officers of the same rank can adjudicate without bias. Regarding jurisdiction, the Deputy Director was competent to issue the order as the amount involved fell within his authority. The Court deemed the writ petitions not maintainable, advising the Petitioners to seek remedy through an appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act. The petitions were dismissed, allowing the Petitioners to raise their issues in the appeal process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Enforcement.

Summary:

Issue No. 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The Petitioners contended that the impugned order violated the principle of "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one can be a judge in his own case) because the complainant and the Adjudicating Authority were officers of the same rank. The Court found that the complaint dated 20.06.2019 was filed by Mrs. Sowmya Nuthalapati, Deputy Director of Enforcement, and the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 was passed by Mr. Rahul Singhania, Deputy Director of Enforcement. The Court held that merely having the same rank does not constitute a violation of natural justice principles. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that bias cannot be presumed merely because the complainant and adjudicator hold the same rank. Therefore, the impugned order was not passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue No. 2: Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Enforcement

The Petitioners argued that the Deputy Director of Enforcement lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the case involved an amount exceeding Rs. 10,00,00,000/-, which should have been adjudicated by the Additional Director of Enforcement. The Court referred to the Ministry of Finance notification dated 27.09.2018, which specifies the monetary limits for authorized officers. The Court found that the amounts involved in the case were Rs. 1,32,38,364/-, Rs. 85,45,184/-, and Rs. 2,70,00,000/-, totaling Rs. 4,87,83,548/-. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Enforcement was competent to pass the impugned order as the amount involved was within his jurisdiction.

Main Question of Maintainability:

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 was passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice and within the jurisdiction prescribed under the Act, 1999. The Court noted that the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1999, and thus, the issues regarding forged documents, delay in filing the complaint, and the quantum of penalty should be raised in an appeal.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions were dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise all their grounds in an appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1999. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

---