1 APHC010283562023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 14585 of 2023 ALONG WITH W.P.Nos.7967, 7968 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-17 [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 14585 of 2023 Attipalli Prabhakar Reddy and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Lok Pal India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.VENKAT CHALLA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 14th July 2025 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.04.2023 and 11.07.2023 passed by the Division bench of Hon’ble Lokpal of India, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.14585 of 2023. Pursuant to the issuance of impugned orders, CBI has registered FIR against the petitioners bearing No.RC2182024A0005 and RC2182024A0004 dated 21.02.2024, as such filed W.P.Nos.7967 & 7968 of 2024 respectively to quash the same. 2 2. The brief facts that led to filing of writ petitions follow under: (a) The 1st respondent has considered an anonymous complaint filed against petitioners for sanctioning loan to 32 loan accounts from Vishnu Nivasam Branch and 9 loan accounts from Tirupati Branch in Chittoor District without following prescribed norms or without any authority and in collusion with the borrowers during December 2013 to 2017. In wake of internal investigation, the Bank has found few procedural lapses and registered FIR bearing No.10 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 against 32 borrowers pertaining to Vishnu Nivasam Branch. The Bank has initiated departmental proceedings against the 2nd petitioner by imposing penalties for the lapses. As the petitioner no.1 and 3 were superannuated on 31.07.2014 and 31.07.2016 respectively, no departmental proceedings were initiated against them as per the Section 48(2) of the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation Act, 1995 due to lapse of limitation period. (b) In view of the above said compliant, the 1st respondent vide its order dated 07.07.2021 directed the 2nd respondent (CBI) to conduct preliminary investigation u/s 20(2) of the Lok Pal Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act, 2013’) and the CBI has submitted report vide CBI Policy Division Letter dated 14.09.2021. During the course of the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that the Bank had also filed a complaint with respect to loans sanctioned by Tirupathi branch (09 accounts). 3 (c) Pursuant to the Preliminary Inquiry Report and the comments of the Competent authority as well as the concerned officers, the 2nd respondent-CBI arrayed the petitioners as Respondent Public Servant nos.1 to 3 (RPS) by duly issuing notices u/s 20(3)(a) of the Act, 2013 under its order dated 05.07.2022 wherein the petitioners have appeared before the Division Bench of 1st respondent and lodged their written submissions and argued at length. Pursuantly, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 and directed the 2nd respondent to conduct investigation in terms of Section 20(3)(a) of the Act, 2013 sans jurisdiction. Later on 11.07.2023, the 1st respondent had reiterated its orders for investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(5) of the LokPal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14585 of 2023. Pursuantly, the CBI registered FIR against the petitioners bearing No.RC2182024A0005 and RC2182024A0004 dated 21.02.2024 respectively; as such they filed W.P.Nos.7967 & 7968 of 2024 to quash the same. 3. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special P.P. for CBI. 4. As the writ petitions are connected, they are heard together and disposed of by passing this Common Order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit would contend that, the 1st respondent, solely basing on 4 an anonymous complaint passed the impugned order, where there was no specific allegation of Corruption and without considering that the Bank has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners who dealt with the disbursement of loans. He further submitted that, a conjoint reading of Sections 2(e) and 14(1) of the Lokpal Act, 2013 and Sections 7-16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 necessitates that a Complaint ought to have specific allegations of an offence covered under the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, failing which the resultant adjudication would only lead to excessing the jurisdiction. A mere reading of complaint will show that there is no allegation of any act or incidence of corruption against the petitioners. Therefore, the said anonymous complaint made against petitioners would not come under the scope of the ‘Complaint’ as envisaged under Section 2(e) of the Lokpal Act, 2013. He would further submit that, in the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the 2nd respondent-CBI, there is no finding about corruption except stating the defects as procedural lapses. Therefore, the impugned order of the 1st respondent directing the CBI to conduct investigation in terms of Section 20(3)(a) of the Act, 2013 and consequential registration of FIRs would entail adverse impact on the career and reputation of the petitioners and unsustainable and bad in the eye of law. As such prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 and quash the FIRs which would straight away hit the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the orders of 1st respondent contended that the Hon’ble LokPal of India had taken due note that the bank reported fraud against petitioners and filed FIR with the local Police Authority. The Full Bench, after considering the Preliminary Inquiry Report, comments of the competent authority as well as the petitioners, issued notices to the petitioners under Section 20(3)(a) of the LokPal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and after providing the opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, it came to a conclusion that, prima facie, several irregularities have been committed in sanctioning and disbursing the loans and different authorities are involved at each stage. Further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the Hon’ble LokPal of India has observed that, loan proposals were prepared based on fabricated documents and though the suppliers did not supply machinery/machine, amounts were disbursed to the suppliers’ accounts. Hence, the 1st respondent has rightly issued the impugned order directing the CBI (2nd respondent) to investigate whether there is any involvement of petitioners or any other officials of the Bank in the cases. And the 1st respondent has reiterated the same direction for investigation under Section 20(5) of the LokPal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 vide its order dated 11.07.2023. Therefore, the petitioners have not made valid grounds warranting interference of this Court and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 6 7. Perused the record and considered the submission of both the learned counsel. 8. It could be seen that, the impugned order was formulated as a consequence to an anonymous complaint bearing No.29/2021 alleging commission of irregularities by some bank officials in sanctioning the loan and disbursement of the same to several Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (‘MSME’) under the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises (‘CGTMSE’), which was meant for plant and machinery, land and buildings and the lender should secure his loan purely on the primary security of assets financed. The 1st respondent has considered the anonymous complaint filed against petitioners pertaining to sanction of loan to 32 loan accounts without following prescribed norms during December 2013 to 2017, from Vishnu Nivasam Branch and 9 loan accounts from Tirupati Branch in Chittoor and issued order dated 07.07.2021 directing the CBI to conduct preliminary investigation u/s 20(2) of the Lok Pal Act, 2013. Meanwhile, the Bank had carried out internal investigation and found few procedural lapses and consequently initiated departmental proceedings against the 2nd petitioner by imposing penalties for the lapses and exempted petitioner nos.1 and 3 as they were superannuated on 31.07.2014 and 31.07.2016 respectively as per the Section 48(2) of the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation Act, 1995 due to lapse of limitation period. In compliance of the orders of 1st respondent, the CBI (2nd respondent) had submitted Preliminary Inquiry Report and after considering the comments of 7 the competent Authority as well as all the concerned officers (13), arrayed the petitioners as Respondent Public Servants No.1 to 3 by duly issuing notices under Section 20(3)(a) of the Act, 2013 under its order dated 05.07.2022. The petitioners have appeared before the Division Bench of the 1st respondent and submitted their written submissions. Pursuantly, the 1st respondent had issued the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 directing the 2nd respondent (CBI) to conduct investigation in terms of Section 20(3)(a) of the Act sans jurisdiction. Later on 11.07.2023, the 1st respondent had reiterated its orders for investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(5) of the LokPal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 9. The Hon’ble LokPal had found out that prima facie, there are several irregularities being committed during sanction and disbursal of loans and different officials were involved at each stage. Despite the prescription of an elaborate process for scrutiny of credit proposals before sanction and audit, before the disbursal of the sanctioned amount, this fraud appears to have taken place. The 1st respondent had further observed that, the loan proposals were prepared based on the fabricated documents and the same was sanctioned and disbursed without there being any supply of material/machinery from the suppliers. 10. The 1st respondent had rightly felt that the investigation is needed to find out, as to who scrutinized the credit proposals and whether he/she exercised due care in scrutinizing the proposals, as to who carried out the Credit 8 Process Audit (CPA) and whether the CPA report brought out the factual position on the ground or was the report is fabricated, and whether the reports of the CPA were overlooked at the time of disbursal loans. So as to find out if there is any involvement of RPS-I, RPS-II, RPS-III and/or RPS-IV or any other officials of bank in the irregularities committed, the 1st respondent has rightly issued the impugned order dt 27.04.2023 directing the 2nd respondent to conduct investigation in terms of Section 20(3)(a) of the Act, 2013 sans jurisdiction which was later reiterated on 11.07.2023, for investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(5) of the LokPal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. This Court finds no intervention is needed in the issuance of the order of the 1st respondent as it carries sufficient reasons. As the intention of the impugned order is to investigate where exactly the irregularities happened and who are involved, there is no point of hitting the fundamental rights of anyone. In view of the same, the petitioners have not made any valid point to set aside the impugned orders for investigation and the writ petition vide W.P.Nos.14585 of 2023 is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Similarly, as the CBI has registered FIRs bearing No.RC2182024A0005 and RC2182024A0004 dated 21.02.2024 against petitioners, pursuant to the issuance of impugned orders, they cannot be quashed, as such W.P.Nos.7967 & 7968 of 2024 are also liable to be dismissed. 9 Accordingly, the Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.14585 of 2023 & W.P.Nos.7967 & 7968 of 2024 are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS