K. Ramamoorthy,j. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "in view of the facts mentioned and submissions herein above, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon ble Court may be pleased: (a) to issue an appropriate writ or order holding the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner vide Mamorandum No. 1 (2) /97-PE. XII dated 24. 11. 1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory; (b) to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order quashing/ setting aside Mamorandum No. 1 (2)/97-PE. XII dated 24. 11. 1997 alongwith its annexures and Order No. l (2)/97-PE. XII dated l7. 7. 1998; (c) to issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate order restraining respondent No. 1 from initiating any further action or proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of Memorandum dated 24. 11. 1997 and restraining respondent No. 2 from taking any action pursuant to Order No. 1 (2)/97-PE. XII dated 17. 7. 1998passedbyrespondentno. 1; (d) to call for the records relating to the investigations and reports of the respondent No. 1 and CBI, correspondence/communications exchanged between the respondent No. 1 and CVC in the matter of disciplinary action agamst the petitioner and any other relevant record. " ( 2 ) THE facts that are necessary for the appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties could be recounted concisely in the following terms : On the 2nd of January, 1989, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman-cum- Managmg Director of the Cement of Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ccr ). In September, 1995, Vigilance clearance was given by the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as cvc) for the proposed appointment of the petitioner as the Chairman of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd The petitioner did not join the post. In December, 1995, there were some complaints received by the first respondent, the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry. The first respondent did not find any substance in the complaint The petitioner was granted extension for three years from February, 1996 upto the 31st of December, 1998. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was functioning as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCI on the date of filing of the writ petition. The first respondent did not find any substance in the complaint The petitioner was granted extension for three years from February, 1996 upto the 31st of December, 1998. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was functioning as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCI on the date of filing of the writ petition. In or about September 1996 the petitioner was considered for the post of Chairman, Airport Authority of india and was placed at No. 1 in the panel drawn by the PESB (Public Enterprises Selection Board ). The Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry examined the same complaint again and could not find anything against the petitioner The first respondent sought for vigilance clearance for the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman, Airport Authority of India. In March, 1997, at the instance of the CVC the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry appointed a Two-Member Committee of two senior officers to examine the case and that Committee came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the complaint against the petitioner On the 13th of May, 1997, the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry wrote to the CVC on the point as according to the Ministry, the case against the petitioner had to be closed. On the 23rd of May, 1997, the CVC wrote to the Union ot India, Department of Heavy Industry, in the following terms ; "the Department of Heavy Industry may please refer to their Office Memorandum No. C-13011/11/96-VIG, Vol.-lll dated 13. 5. 1997 on the aforementioned subject. 2. The Commission observes that the report of the Committee constituted by the Department of Heavy Industry can only betermed as a preliminary fact findmg exercise based on some documents and some other inputs. The Committee, does not appear to have recorded the oral evidence of all the witnesses/persons who were connected with these matters. In particularly it is felt that the affairs relating to Coal Linkage through private parties and emergency import of spares which are still lying at the port need further probe. 3. Although the investigation conducted so far is not adequate to initiate formal disciplinary action against Shri Darbari, the instances brought out are a case for real concern as there are clear pointers to the lack of transparency and commercial prudence in the transactions and a certain rashness in financial management. 4. 3. Although the investigation conducted so far is not adequate to initiate formal disciplinary action against Shri Darbari, the instances brought out are a case for real concern as there are clear pointers to the lack of transparency and commercial prudence in the transactions and a certain rashness in financial management. 4. Keeping these in view, it is not possible to accord Shri Darbari a cleanchit for his proposed appointment as Chairman, Airport Authority of India. The Commission also observes that the Airport Authority of India is a complex technical organisation with a lot of administrative and financial responsibilities. Its vigilance health is also not too commendable. Viewed together, the Commission expresses its reservations against Shri Anand Darbari, being considered for appointment to the post of Chairman, Airport Authority of India. 5. Receipt of Commission s Office Memorandum may be acknowledged. " ( 4 ) IN this, the CVC opined that the investigation conducted so far was not adequate to initiate formal disciplinary action against the petitioner. At this stage, it must be noticed that CVC has based its opinion on its subjective consideration of the matter. ( 5 ) ON the 28th of August, 1997, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry wrote to the petitioner in the following terms: "cci has taken steps to obtain coal from Assam-Meghalaya for its Units located in the South through private parties and also getting linkage coal through private transporters by permitting them to make payment on behalf of the company and transporting coal by road. The system in place seems to be flawed as sufficient and effective checks do not seem to be in position to prevent misuse/abuse by the concerned parties. In the light of the above position, a detailed report on the experience of the company in getting coal through the above modes alongwith actions taken on misuse/malpractices brought to the notice of the management may be sent urgently. The report should also incorporate changes/modifications proposed to be introduced in procurement of coal. The same may be sent to the Government after discussions in the Board. Pending finalisation of the report and its consideration by the Board, fresh contracts for transportation of coal through private parties may not be awarded. The feasibility of termination of existing contracts may be explored and put up to the Board for decision. The same may be sent to the Government after discussions in the Board. Pending finalisation of the report and its consideration by the Board, fresh contracts for transportation of coal through private parties may not be awarded. The feasibility of termination of existing contracts may be explored and put up to the Board for decision. " ( 6 ) ON the 10th of August, 1997, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industry in reply to the letter dated 28. 8. 1997. The Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of the CCI dated 17. 9. 1997,8. 10. 1997 and 28. 10. 1997 are on record at pages 96 to 99 which would show the decisions taken by the Board in the meetings. ( 7 ) THE letters dated 26. 9. 1997,22. 10. 1997 and 12. 11. 1997, the Director (Finance) of the CCI to the Ministry of Heavy Industry are on record at pages 103 to 131. ( 8 ) THE extracts from the Minutes of the Meetings of the Board held on 27. 2. 1996, 12. 7. 1996,16. 1. 1997 and 24. 6. 1997 are on record at pages 144 to 171. In June, 1997, the CVC called for original records though photostat copies of the records were already available with the CVC. In July, 1997, the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Industry, in its letter to the Department of Personnel and Training, noted that some of the allegations referred to in the complaint of September, 1996 had already been examined and were closed, and the other allegations were also looked into in detail and nothing had been substantiated against the petitioner, as found by the Departmental Committee of the first respondent. ( 9 ) IN paragraph 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated : "that the respondent No. 1 in the first week of July, 1997, sent a letter to Department of Personnel and Training again expressed its views in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint of September, 1996. As per these views of the respondent No. 1, some of the allegations contained in the above complaint were already examined and were closed. The remaining allegations were looked into in detail but the same remain unsubstantiated even after an in-depth investigation held by a Departmental Committee of two officers of the respondent No. 1. As per these views of the respondent No. 1, some of the allegations contained in the above complaint were already examined and were closed. The remaining allegations were looked into in detail but the same remain unsubstantiated even after an in-depth investigation held by a Departmental Committee of two officers of the respondent No. 1. " ( 10 ) IN reply to the paragraph 32, the first respondent has stated in the counter "refer to para 7 in reply. " In paragraph 7 of the reply, it is stated : "the procedure regarding issue of charge sheet in the Vigilance Manual is a broad guideline and is not mandatory since it is not a statute. The Disciplinary Authority is not precluded from instituting formal disciplinary proceeding without calling for explanation of the Delinquent Officer. It is clarified that a Memorandum is a formal show-cause notice which gives opportunity to the Delinquent Officer to explain his/her stand. A decision to institute a formal inquiry is taken only after due consideration of his reply by the Disciplinary Authority. " ( 11 ) FROM this, it is clear that what is stated in paragraph 32 remains uncontroverted. ( 12 ) IN September, 1997, the CCI had constituted a Committee headed by Director (Operations) for looking into the matters mentioned in the letter dated 28. 8. 1997. In October, 1997, that Committee inquired into the matter in great detail and found that no case had been made out against the petitioner. At once, the Committee recorded that the CCI "reduced the loss to the tune of Rs. 21 crores on the strength of the purchase policy adopted by the CCI". The report of the Committee was considered by the Board in its three meetings. It is to be noted here that the Two-Members are officers nominated by the first respondent (Union of India, Department of Heavy Industry ). ( 13 ) AS I had noticed above, on the 10th October, 1997, the petitioner wrote to the first respondent, Ministry of Heavy Industry about the report of the Committee. ( 14 ) IN paragraph 39 of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated : "that besides above, petitioner vide his letter dated 10. 10. 1997 addressed to Secretary of Department of Heavy Industry apprised him about the salient feature of the report of the aforesaid Committee. ( 14 ) IN paragraph 39 of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated : "that besides above, petitioner vide his letter dated 10. 10. 1997 addressed to Secretary of Department of Heavy Industry apprised him about the salient feature of the report of the aforesaid Committee. The petitioner understands that afterperusing the aforesaid letter, the concerned Industry Minister vide a written note on the said letter itself directed that no further action in the matter may be taken without considering the report of the Committee headed by Director (Operations), CCI which consisted of more than two volumes and was sent separately to respondent No. 1. In total disregard of the written instructions of the Industry Minister, the Report of the Committee has not been examined by the respondent No. 1 as they are aware that the said Report is factually correct. A copy of the said letter dated 10. 10. 1997 is annexed as Annexure P-XI. " ( 15 ) ON the 7th of November, 1997, the petitioner challenged the action of the CVC inrefusing to give clearance for his appointment as the Chairman, Airport Authority of India in CWP 4749/97. That is pending in this Court. ( 16 ) ON the 24th of November, 1997, the first respondent issued charge sheet against the petitioner mentioning six charges. On the 25th of November, 1997, the first respondent made a complaint to the CBI and the same was registered. The allegations in the FIR and the imputations in the charge sheet issued on 24. 11. 1997 are similar but what is stated by the first respondent is that the thrust in the charge sheet is different. On the 2nd of January, 1998, the petitioner submitted his defence to the charge sheet. In or about April, 1998, the petitioner received intimation calling for an interview for the post of CMD, Bharat Heavy Electricals. However, he was asked not to appear as the CVC had not given clearance. In or about the 16th of July, 1998, the CBI had sent its report to the first respondent. On the 17th of July, 1998, the first respondent issued an order appointing Inquiry Officer pursuant to the charge sheet. ( 17 ) ONE the 18th of July, 1998, the writ petition was presented in this Court. ( 18 ) THE judgment was reserved in the matter on the 9th of December, 1998. On the 17th of July, 1998, the first respondent issued an order appointing Inquiry Officer pursuant to the charge sheet. ( 17 ) ONE the 18th of July, 1998, the writ petition was presented in this Court. ( 18 ) THE judgment was reserved in the matter on the 9th of December, 1998. On the 14th of December, 1998, in the evening, the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Madan Lokur, produced a copy of the letter dated 14. 12. 1998 by the CVC to the first respondent, about which I shall refer to a little later. ( 19 ) THE case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that once the first respondent had approached the CBI and the CBI had expressed the view that no case had been made out against the petitioner, the charge cannot be sustained and the first respondent should have applied its mind to find out whether primafacie case is there, for issuing a charge sheet, and there was no application of mind and issuance of charge sheet was not at all valid in law. ( 20 ) THE point to be considered is: Whether the charge sheet was issued on the basis of objective considerations on the materials on record and whether it was an exercise just to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right to be considered for appointment in any of the public sector undertakings. The second respondent is the Inquiry Officer appointed by the first respondent to inquire into the charges. ( 21 ) THE first respondent would state that in view of the report. of the Committee, which had been adverted to above, there were no procedural irregularities and the petitioner cannot be proceeded against on that score. There could be no charge of any corruption against the petitioner. However, according to the first respondent, there had been departmental irregularities in respect of the grant of contracts for procurement of coal. ( 22 ) DR. A. M. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, formulated his submissions and the same could be enumerated thus: 1. Disciplinary Authority has no power to reopen the case against the petitioner, which had been considered and decision had been arrived at to close the matter, at the instance of the CVC. ( 22 ) DR. A. M. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, formulated his submissions and the same could be enumerated thus: 1. Disciplinary Authority has no power to reopen the case against the petitioner, which had been considered and decision had been arrived at to close the matter, at the instance of the CVC. The CVC for reasons best known to it, had acted in excess of its powers and without any justifiable reasons had triggered off the issue. 2. The first respondent ought to have acted in accordance with the Vigilance Manual. Once the matter was referred to the CBI, the first respondent could act only after the CBI had expressed its view. In this case, the CBI had completely cleared the petitioner and, if that is so, there is no scope for issuing charge sheet on the premise of the thrust being different, which is merely a verbial acrobatics. 3. The first respondent had singled out the petitioner for disciplinary action while the decisions involve collective responsibility of officers and that violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The allegations of charge against the petitioner were relating to transactions for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 to which the first respondent was well aware of and the charge sheet had been issued on the 24th of November, 1997, and, therefore, it was belated and it would amount to reopening of stale matters. 5. The stand taken in paragraph 63 of the counter that the CBI had addressed itself adequately in respect of five imputations is absolutely unsustainable. ( 23 ) ON the facts and circumstances of this case, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for bearing the firs respondent from proceeding further with any other inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet dated 24. 11. 1997. ( 24 ) MR. Madan Lokur, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents, submitted that the fact that the Two-Member Committee had ex pressed its view and thus there were no procedural irregularities and the first respondent is not on that but Mr. Madan Lokur, Additional Solicitor General. submitted that the first respondent has not proceeded against the petitioner on the ground of any charge of corruption. Madan Lokur, Additional Solicitor General. submitted that the first respondent has not proceeded against the petitioner on the ground of any charge of corruption. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, the first respondent had come to a decision on the basis of materials available on record and the petitioner could be stated to have been guilty of some departmental irregularities and there is a grey area which was not covered by the report of the Two-Member Committee and by the report of the CBI, and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the first respondent was not justified in issuing the charge sheet. ( 25 ) THE learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the first respondent had acted, in issuing the charge sheet, on the basis of statutory rules and regulations, and the petitioner cannot rely upon the Vigilance Manual which is not mandatory in nature and the petitioner cannot have any grievance if the first respondent had not followed the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. The allegations broadly catalogued in paragraph 63 of the counter are only to highlight the imputations against the petitioner and that is not conclusive on the point. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the first respondent had issued only a charge sheet and the petitioner had submitted his defence and petitioner would have full opportunity to defend himself and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that ultimately the petitioner may be found not guilty of any of the charges. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the first respondent had not acted on the pressure of CVC and that stand is wholly untenable. Mr. Madan Lokur, the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the CBI despatched its report on the 16th of July, 1998 and it was received by the first respondent on the 17th of July, 1998 and before that the first respondent had issued an order appointing the Inquiry Officer, who is the second respondent. The argument that after the receipt of the report from the CBI, the first respondent had appointed the Inquiry Officer is not factually correct. ( 26 ) ON the factual matrics, the reports given by the Two-Member Committee had completely exonerated the petitioner could be appreciated from a perusal of those reports. The argument that after the receipt of the report from the CBI, the first respondent had appointed the Inquiry Officer is not factually correct. ( 26 ) ON the factual matrics, the reports given by the Two-Member Committee had completely exonerated the petitioner could be appreciated from a perusal of those reports. ( 27 ) THE charge sheet was issued long before the CBI sent its report. It is in this connection the provisions of the Vigilance Manual would assume importance. In Clause 1. 2 in Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual, the work to be entrusted to the CBI is adumbrated. That clause as follows: "as a general rule investigations of the types given below should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation or the anti-corruption branch in the Union Territories. (i) allegations involving offences punishable under law which the Delhi Special Police Establishment are authorised to investigate, such as offences involving bribery, corruption, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, falsification of records, etc. ; (ii) possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income; (iii) cases in which the allegations are such that their truth cannot be ascertained without making inquiries from non-official persons or those involving examination of non-Government records, books of accounts etc. ; and (iv) other cases of a complicated nature requiring expert police investigation. All Chief Vigilance Officers including those of public undertakings and Nationalised Banks, subject to the administrative instructions issued by the Chief Executive have complete discretion to refer the above types of cases to the CBI and it is not necessary to seek the Commission s prior permission. " ( 28 ) CLAUSE 1,5 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual provides: "in cases where the allegations relate to a misconduct other than an offence or to a departmental irregularity or negligence and the alleged facts are capable of verification or inquiry within the Department/office, they should be made departmentally. " ( 29 ) IN cases where department concerned has to take disciplinary action against an officer, it has to proceed under Clause 1. 6 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual, which reads as under: "in certain cases the allegations may be of both types. " ( 29 ) IN cases where department concerned has to take disciplinary action against an officer, it has to proceed under Clause 1. 6 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual, which reads as under: "in certain cases the allegations may be of both types. In such cases it should be decided in consultation with the Central Bureau of Investigation as to which of the allegations should be dealt with departmentally and which should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. " ( 30 ) THE Vigilance Manual had contemplated cases where the department would not beable to segregate the two, and in such an event the course to be adopted by the department is provided in Clause 1. 7 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual, which is in the following terms : "if there is any difficulty in separating the allegations for separate investigation in the manner suggested above, the better course would be to entrust the whole case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. " ( 31 ) THE Vigilance Manual had imposed an embargo for any further action by the department concerned in case the entire matter had been referred to the CBI. Clause 1. 8 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual provides: "once a case has been referred to and taken up by the CBI for investigation, further investigation should be left to them and a parallel investigation by the Administrative Ministry/department, Organisation should be avoided. Further action by the Department, should be taken on the completion of investigation by the CBI on the basis of their report. " ( 32 ) THE Vigilance Manual speaks of a preliminary inquiry so that the public servant concerned is not put to any prejudice. In Clause 2. 3 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual it is stated : "during the course of preliminary enquiry, the public servant concerned may be given an opportunity to say what he may have to say about the allegations against him to find out if he is in a position to give any satisfactory information or explanation. In the absence of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is only proper, therefore, that the Investigating Officer tries to obtain the suspect officers version of "facts" and why an inquiry should not be held. In the absence of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is only proper, therefore, that the Investigating Officer tries to obtain the suspect officers version of "facts" and why an inquiry should not be held. There is no question of making available to him any documents at this stage. " ( 33 ) IF the CBI is of the opinion that there is sufficient mdterials for launching a criminal prosecution, the final report is to be forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission. In cases where the CBI is of the view that there is no sufficient materials for launching criminal prosecution, what CBI is to do is mentioned in Clause 3. 11 of Chapter III of the Vigilance Manual. The same is as under: "in other cases in which evidence available is not sufficient for launching criminal prosecution, the CBI may come to the conclusion that: 728 (i) The allegations are of a nature serious enough to justify regular departmental action being taken against the public servant concerned. The final report in such cases will be accompanied by (a) draft articles of charge prepared in the prescribed form (see Chapter X); (b) a statement of imputations in support of each charge; and (c) lists of documents and witnesses relied upon to prove the charges and imputations; or (ii) While sufficient proof is not available to justify prosecution or regular departmental action, there is a reasonable suspicion about the honesty or integrity of the Government servant concerned, the final report in such cases will seek to bring to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority the nature of irregularity or negligence for such administrative action as may be considered feasible or appropriate. " ( 34 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, referred to extracts from the directives issued by DOPT in OM No. 371 /5/73-ABD (111) dated 5. 9. 1975 which reads as under: "in cases in which preliminary enquiry (P. E.) discloses that there is no substance in the allegations or that sufficient material is not available for registering a case (R. C.) or for initiating departmental action, the S. P. E. may decide to close the case. Such cases pertaining to Gazetted Officers will be reported to the Central Vigilance Commission. Such cases pertaining to Gazetted Officers will be reported to the Central Vigilance Commission. In other cases, the decision to close a case is communicated to the administrative authority concerned. Once a case is referred to and taken up by the S. P. E. for investigation, further investigation must be left to them. A parallel investigation by the Administrative Authority should be avoided. Further action by the department should be taken on the completion of the investigation by the S. P. E. on the basis of their report. " ( 35 ) ACCORDING to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, the first respondent should have waited for the report of the CBI before issuing the charge sheet. Mr. Madan Lokur, the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the above directives had been modified in 1983 but their effect is the same. ( 36 ) IT is a basic principle of law that once the Government had issued a manual containing guidelines, or may be termed as policy, in the absence of any statutory rule governing the situtation, the Government is bound to act as per the guidelines. The first respondent in the instant case had completely ignored the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. ( 37 ) IN" dr. AMARJIT Smgh Ahluwaliav. "^the State of Punjab and Others",a. ir1975 SC 984, and "narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Others", 1990 (Suppl. .) SCC 440, the Supreme Court had considered the scope of the guidelines or the policy framed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, submitted that the principles under Article 73 relating to the Central Government and Article 162 relating to the State Government would apply subordinates to investigate in the matter and it is only after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not. ( 41 ) THE Calcutta High Court in "golam Mohiuddin v. State of West Bengal and Others", AIR 1964 Cal 503 observed : "the manner in which the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner left much to be desired. If persons, responsible for initiation of such proceedings, do start such proceedings without being themselves satisfied as to the necessity, their action, to say the least, cannot be characterised as responsible conduct. If persons, responsible for initiation of such proceedings, do start such proceedings without being themselves satisfied as to the necessity, their action, to say the least, cannot be characterised as responsible conduct. But however, irresponsibly a disciplinary action may have been started, if the charges are ultimately proved, the result may justify the action. In the instant case, however, the charges against the petitioner have not been, in my opinion, proved. That makes the irresponsible initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner very much blameworthy. The circumstances under which a disciplinary action for misconduct should be started against a public servant must be left in he sole discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. A Disciplinary Authority should exercise such discretion in a bona fide and responsible manner, should not be unduly swayed by public gossip and should not be induced by extraneous pressure in such a matter. Otherwise the morale of public servant may be broken. I hold that the criticism of the conduct of Mr. C. K. Roy by Mr. Deb, in the matter of issuing the charge sheet against the petitioner, is justifiable criticism and establishes irresponsible conduct, if not action under influence of political pressure. " ( 42 ) THE learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court referred to this aspect in a case where the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta challenged the ultimate order of imposing punishment. ( 43 ) THE same High Court in "surendra Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and Others", 1982 Lab. I. C. 574 noticed the principle in the following terms: "after giving my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective Counsel on this subject, it appears to me that whether a charge sheet has been issued with a closed mind or not cannot always be decided by a mere reference to the charge sheet itself. The language used in the charge sheet certainly renders a very important indication in the matter but other attending circumstances may at times throw light on the intent and import of the charge sheet. It is true that the charges levelled against a Delinquent Officer must be clear and unambiguous, but at the same time the charge sheet should not be issued with a biased and closed mind. It is true that the charges levelled against a Delinquent Officer must be clear and unambiguous, but at the same time the charge sheet should not be issued with a biased and closed mind. The real purpose of initiating a disciplinary proceeding is to enquire as to whether the facts, prima facie, ascertained against a Delinquent Officer, are correct or not. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding cannot be to cause a secret enquiry against a Delinquent Officer and to form a positive and firm view about his complicity in the alleged misconduct and thereafter to give him an opportunity to dispel the conclusion already drawn against him. If therefore from the attending circumstances and also from the language of the charge sheet, it appears that tile Disciplinary subordinates to investigate in the matter and it is ony after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not. ( 41 ) THE Calcutta High Court in "golam Mohiaddin v. State of West Bengal and Others", AIR 1964 Cal 503 observed : "the manner in which the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner left much to be desired. If persons, responsible for initiation of such proceedings, do start such proceedings without being themselves satisfied as to the necessity, their action, to say the least, cannot be characterised as responsible conduct. But however, irresponsibly a disciplinary action may have been started, if the charges are ultimately proved, the result may justify the tion. In the instant case, however, the charges against the petitioner have not been, in my opinion, proved. That makes the irresponsible initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner very much blameworthy. The circumstances under which a disciplinary action for misconduct should be started against a public servant must be left in he sole discretion of the Disciplinary Authority. A Disciplinary Authority should exercise such discretion in a bona fide and responsible manner, should not be unduly swayed by public gossip and should not be induced by extraneous pressure in such a matter. Otherwise the morale of public servant may be broken. I hold that the criticism of the conduct of Mr. C. K. Roy by Mr. Deb, in the matter of issuing the charge sheet against the petitioner, is justifiable criticism and establishes irresponsible conduct, if not action under influence of political pressure. Otherwise the morale of public servant may be broken. I hold that the criticism of the conduct of Mr. C. K. Roy by Mr. Deb, in the matter of issuing the charge sheet against the petitioner, is justifiable criticism and establishes irresponsible conduct, if not action under influence of political pressure. " ( 42 ) THE learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court referred to this aspect in a case where the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta challenged the ultimate order of imposing punishment. ( 43 ) THE same High Court in "surendra Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and Others", 1982 Lab. I. C. 574 noticed the principle in the following terms : "after giving my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective Counsel on this subject, it appears to me that whether a charge sheet has been: issued with a closed mind or not cannot always be decided by a mere reference to the charge sheet itself. The language used in the charge sheet certainly renders a very important indication in the matter but other attending circumstances may at times throw light on the intent and import of the charge sheet It is true that the charges levelled against a Delinquent Officer must be cleai and unambiguous, but at the same time the charge sheet should not beissued with a biased and closed mind. The real purpose of initiating a disciplinary proceeding is to enquire as to whether the facts, prima facie, ascertained against a Delinquent Officer, are correct or not. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding cannot be to cause a secret enquiry against a Delinquent Officer and to form a positive and firm view about his complicity in the alleged misconduct and thereafter to give him an opportunity to dispel the conclusion already drawn against him. If therefore from the attending circumstances and also from the language of the charge sheet, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has really drawn a positive conclusion against a Delinquent Officer and thereafter has started a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge sheet only to afford him an opportunity to dispel the conclusion drawn against him then such disciplinary proceeding must be held to be bad being vitiated by bias and a closed mind and having been in all intent and purpose, started to complete a formality in law. " ( 44 ) ON the facts, the learned Judge G. N. Ray (as His Lordship then was) held: "in the instant case, it appears that in 1973 the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the ground that there had been misappropriation of Government money when the petitioner was handling the cash. A complaint for such misconduct was also made to the Police in 1973 and after causing enquiries, the Police closed the case in 1974 and informed the concerned officer that the prima facie case against the petitioner could not have been established. There was no bar for starting a disciplinary proceeding even when the Police case failed and the department was quite free to start a disciplinaiy proceeding if prima fade the authority was satisfied about the complicity of the petitioner. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner had repeatedly asked to withdraw the order of suspension and to exonerate the petitioner from the charges since enquired by the Police at the instance of the department, but neither the suspension order was revoked nor any disciplinary proceeding was started. The petitioner had to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtain a Civil Rule wherein he had also pressed for an interim order. It was only at that stage, on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the State, liberty was given by the Court to the respondents to start the disciplinary proceeding and to issue a charge sheet. It also appears that in the instant case further investigation was made by the Vigilance Department and after scrutinisng the records, the petitioner s complicity was found by the Vigilance Department and on such finding and recommendation of the Vigilance Department the charge sheet was issuedclearly alleging that the petitioner was guilty of the offences. It is, therefore, evident that the Disciplinary Authority in reality did not form its own primafacie opinion but was influenced by the finding of the Vigilance Department and having accepted such finding, issued the said charge sheet clearly indicating that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged misconduct. In the circumstances, it cannot be contended that the charge sheet read with the attending circumstances really indicates that a tentative finding was made against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority had not formed any definite view against the petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be contended that the charge sheet read with the attending circumstances really indicates that a tentative finding was made against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority had not formed any definite view against the petitioner. In my view, in the facts of this case, the decision Made in the case of Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, (1977)4cal. H. C. (N) 1014 squarely applies and the charge sheet must fail on the ground that the same was issued with a closed mind and it depicts bias against the petitioner. The charge sheet and the disciplinary proceeding initiated thereon are, therefore, quashed. As the petitioner has since retired on superannuation there cannot be any occasion to start a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and to continue the same in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. In the circumstances, the issue as to the vires of Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 need not be decided in this case. The rule is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Rule disposed of accordingly. " ( 45 ) THE broad proposition contended for on behalf of the petitioner is that in every case before issuing a charge sheet there should be on record something to show that the Disciplinary Authority was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the employee need not be considered. The point in the instant case is that whether the procedure prescribed under the Vigilance Manual, could be by-passed under the pretext of the thrust of the allegations being inquired into by the first respondent. ( 46 ) IN food Coiportion of India v. V. P. Bhatia JT 1998 (8) SC16,the Supreme Court had laid down that the department concerned would be justified in waiting for the report from the CBI before any action is contemplated. The facts, as noticed by the Supreme Court, are : ". . . . . . THE Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) upon information that substandard crates have been supplied to the Food Corporation of India, appellant I in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-corporation") carried out surprise checks and took samples and thereafter suo motu investigation was undertaken by the CBI. . . . . . THE Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) upon information that substandard crates have been supplied to the Food Corporation of India, appellant I in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-corporation") carried out surprise checks and took samples and thereafter suo motu investigation was undertaken by the CBI. As a result of the investigation it was found that the crates had only 30% Kail/deodar and, as a result, the appellant-corporation had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 9,80,056. 00 and Rs. 2,89,340. 00. The CBI submitted its report on 30. 12. 1988 wherein it recommended holding of disciplinary proceedings against the employees concerned of the appellant-corporation, including the respondents in these appeals. The matter was thereafter referred to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission on 22. 5. 1989 recommended initiation of proceedings for imposing major penalty. Consequently, charge sheets were served on the respondents in September, 1990 and the enquiry. in the charges was entrusted to the same Enquiry Officer in the proceedings against both the respondents. While the proceedings were pending before the Enquiry Officer, the respondents filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgments and as a result the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed. The High Court has held that there was no reason why the appellant- corporation should have waited for the report from CBI when the misconduct was detected in the year 1987 itself and that enquiry should have been started straightaway. The High Court has further observed that even after the CBI recommended action in 1988, the enquiry was not initiated till 1990 and that as on the date of impugned judgments no Enquiry Officer has been appointed and enquiry had not proceeded. " ( 47 ) THE appellant before the Supreme Court referred to the Vigilance Manual. The Supreme Court noticed the submission on behalf of the appellant and they are asunder: - "mr. Vivek Gambhir, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has invited our attention to paragraph 1. " ( 47 ) THE appellant before the Supreme Court referred to the Vigilance Manual. The Supreme Court noticed the submission on behalf of the appellant and they are asunder: - "mr. Vivek Gambhir, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has invited our attention to paragraph 1. 7 of Chapter III of Volume I of the Vigilance Manual of the Central Vigilance Commission which has been adopted by the appellant- corporation wherein it is stated : "once a case has been entrusted to the CBI for investigation further inquiries should be left to them and departmental inquiry, whether fact finding or formal under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, if any, commenced already, should be held in abeyance till such time as the investigation by the CBI has been completed. Parallel investigation of any kind should be avoided. Further action by the Administrative Authority should be taken on the completion of the investigation by the CBI on the basis of their report. " ( 48 ) THE Supreme Court held : "in view of the said direction contained in the Vigilance Manual no fault can be found with the appellant-corporation in waiting for the investigation report of the CBI and the High Court was in error in holding that the appellant- corporation need not have waited for the report of the CBI and should have started the disciplinary proceedings straightaway. " ( 49 ) WHAT is extracted by the Supreme Court from the Vigilance Manual is now contamed in Clauses 1. 7 and 1. 8 of Chapter lll of the Vigilance Manual,which is in force. The int in the instant case is not what was considered by the Supreme Court. But the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, submitted that the first respondent was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. As I had already noticed, the first respondent has chosen to ignore the Vigilance Manual. ( 50 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, submitted that the first respondent had acted under the pressure of the CVC. That is denied by the first respondent. I do not think it necessary to deal with this aspect when it is to be decided whether the first respondent has acted in accordance with law. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, submitted that the first respondent had acted under the pressure of the CVC. That is denied by the first respondent. I do not think it necessary to deal with this aspect when it is to be decided whether the first respondent has acted in accordance with law. The fact of their having been pressurised from the CVC, in my view, is not very material, for CVC, as an independent body, is entitled to have its view and which is always Justiciable. The fact is that the CVC had taken a view which had been endorsed by the first respondent, which had resulted in the issuance of the charge. The challenge on the decision of the first respondent that when already allegations had been considered in extenso and in depth, they cannot be resuscitated or resurrected proprio vigore would apply to the view taken by the CVC. Therefore, the question whether there is any pressure or not from the CVC is not quite relevant.