First respondent No.1 stated that on the basis of a source information, a preliminary inquiry was companyducted in which the statements of various officers were recorded.
Appellant, however, in the meanwhile, was transferred by an order dated 20.05.2005.
A writ petition was filed by Appellant, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs direct the respondent number1 to reopen the Preliminary Inquiry No.
However, the investigating officer was of the opinion that it was number necessary to register a First Information Report.
34 lakhs and for duping the respondent number.
direct the respondent number1 to receive the companyplaints of the petitioner in respect of all companytracts past and present in terms of excess payment in the Nagpur Store and direct the respondent number.2 to 5 to provide access to all records necessary documents to the petitioner for filing the companyplaints.
The Central Vigilance Commission advised the Railway Board to initiate minor penalty proceedings against the delinquent officers by a letter dated 04.08.2005.
direct the respondent number1 to register the inquiries for offences against the respondent number.
PE/4A/2004 and submit a report in accordance with law after a detailed inquiry in the matter to the Competent Court.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendation made by the first respondent, which had received the imprimatur by the Central Vigilance Commission, departmental proceedings were initiated.
Evidently it was within the province of the first respondent to companymence a preliminary inquiry.
2 to 4 for excess purchases and companymission of fraud to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Amravati Municipal Corporation in terms of octroi amount of Rs.
pending the reconsideration of the transfer of the petitioner by the respondent number 2, stay the effect operation of the Order passed by the Chief Personnel Officer S T , a Subordinate of the respondent number 2 dated 20/5/2005.
It is number in dispute that Appellant was directed to be transferred on administrative grounds by an order dated 20.05.2005.
It recommended for holding of departmental proceedings against the companycerned officers.
It is stated that pursuant to or in furtherance of the said recommendation, the Railway Administration initiated departmental proceedings against the companycerned officers, namely, S Shri Shyam Sunder, J. Dave, R.T. Pali and Ganga Prasad Sahu and imposed different penalties on them.
The opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission was also obtained.
The said recommendation found favour with the higher officers.
The Railway Board thereafter by letters dated 06.12.2005 and 22.02.2006 advised the Central Vigilance Commission as regards imposition of penalties upon the said officers and closure of cases against them.
6 and 7.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.09.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.558 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Appellant herein was dismissed.
Only an anonymous companyplaint was made in June 2004.
Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
By an order dated 17.08.2005, the application filed by Appellant was dismissed.
direct the respondent number 2 to reconsider the Order dated 20.5.05 passed by the Chief Personnel Officer Signal Telecommunication , Central Railway in view of the disclosures made by the petitioner and his request for detailed enquiry of the Store of Nagpur Division of Central Railway.
Appellant claims himself to be a vigilant employee He made an anonymous companyplaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging companyrupt practices and financial irregularities on the part of some officers of his department.
No.6426 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
direct the respondent number 1 to register inquiry for offences in respect of excess purchases of Amla.
He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal companytending that the said order of transfer was mala fide and being an outcome of his companyplaint and statements made in the inquiry companyducted by the first respondent.
