New Delhi: It is high time those who investigate are investigated in order to keep the public’s faith in the system alive. This is what the Supreme Court said Wednesday as it upheld a 19-year-old Delhi High Court order to probe two former CBI officers—including an ex-Delhi Police commissioner—accused of misconduct during their tenure.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale stated, “It is cardinal in law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. It is high time that sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated to keep alive the faith of the public at large in the system.”
Noting that the alleged offence by the erstwhile CBI officers—inspector Vinod Kumar Pandey and former joint director Neeraj Kumar (who later went on to serve as Delhi Police chief)—occurred in 2000, the court rued the fact that the matter hadn’t been investigated till date.
“It would be a dichotomy of justice if such an offence is allowed to go uninvestigated particularly when there is involvement of the officers on deputation to CBI,” the two-judge bench of the top court said.
The allegations against the two former CBI officers pertain to the IPC sections of criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, knowingly disobeying the law as a public servant with intent to cause injury, and criminal conspiracy, among others.
These allegations were made by a businessman called Vijay Aggarwal and co-complainant Sheesh Ram Saini in their plea before the Delhi High Court in June 2006. The single-judge bench had then issued directions to the Delhi Police, asking them to register a case against the two officers.
In their plea, the complainants argued that although they had approached the police in 2001 and 2004 to get the matter investigated, no action was taken and the police instead, “expressed reluctance to entertain the complaints”. This left them no choice but to move court, they said.
Examining the HC single-judge bench’s order, the top court also said that an inquiry report filed by the joint director of the CBI in April 2005 had found that cognizable offences were made out against the officers. Therefore, the court noted, the officers had exhibited a malafide and malicious exercise of authority, by summoning Agarwal in violation of a bail order passed in 2000.
The HC had in 2006 also noted that prima facie, a case could be made out against Pandey and Kumar as they were being implicated for cognizable or serious offences, in which arrest can take place without a warrant. It directed the Special Cell of the Delhi Police to investigate the matter, with the help of an officer of ACP rank or above.
This led the two former CBI officers to challenge the decision before a two-judge bench of the HC, which denied them relief in 2019. The officers later moved the top court.
However, the complainant objected to this challenge, stating it took Pandey and Kumar more than 12 years to come to court and challenge the order.
Before the top court, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar argued on behalf of the officers that the complaint against them did not make out any cognizable offence for registering an FIR, and the HC couldn’t have recorded a finding of commission of a cognizable offence for investigation. The procedure established by law and laid down by courts was not followed, he argued.
Also appearing for the respondents, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju contended that since the preliminary inquiry was conducted by an officer of the CBI and the case involved allegations against CBI officers, the agency should be made a party in this case to defend the inquiry report and its officers.
However, the court noted that CBI is not the party “actually aggrieved” by the HC’s direction to register an FIR against the officers since it hadn’t challenged the 2006 ruling. The officers are aggrieved in their personal capacity, the court said, while noting that they have to defend themselves by taking appropriate legal remedies and the “CBI has nothing to do with it”.
The Supreme Court then upheld the Delhi HC’s finding that both officers had committed irregularities while discharging their official duties and were on the face of it guilty of committing the alleged offences.
“Both the officers have acted in connivance, and it is alleged that one of the officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey, had acted at the behest of the senior officer, Neeraj Kumar,” the court said.
Recalling the single-judge’s 2006 order, the top court noted that it had held “that the allegations of abuse, intimidation, and threats, including use of vulgar language to coerce the complainant to ensure withdrawal of his brother’s complaint against Neeraj Kumar, were serious”.
Such conduct is grave in nature, the court said while directing the CBI officers to join the investigation, which is underway.
Finally, the court disposed of the petition stating that the correctness or veracity of the allegations need not have been gone into at the stage of a preliminary inquiry and since these allegations were serious in nature, they could not be brushed aside lightly.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)