1 / 35 2025:CGHC:48761-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 25.6.2025 Order delivered on 23/9/2025 WPPIL No. 53 of 2018 1. Kundan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Hari Singh Thakur, Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 3, Near Khallari Mata Mandir, P. S. City, Kushalpur Chouck, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through Home Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs India, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hills New Delhi New Delhi, 2. Secretary Personnel D O P T Department Of Personnel And Training, North Block, New Delhi 110001 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources & Development MHRD, Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001. 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Central Bureau of Investigation C B I Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, Through The Dyp.S.P Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 6. Secretary to Hon’ble Minister, Women & Child Welfare Department, Through Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. The Secretary, Nagriy Prashashan Avm Vikash Vibhag, Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 8. The Secretary, Panchayat Avm Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 9. The Secretary, School Siksha Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 10.The Secretary, Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 / 35 11.The Secretary, Lok Swasthya Avm Pariwar Kalyan Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 12. The Secretary, Vitt Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 13. The Director, Panchayat Avm Samaj Sewa Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 14. Smt. Renuka Singh, W/o Phool Singh, Ex- Minister Women And Child Welfare Department, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 15. Shri Vivek Dhand, S/o Shri S. P. Dhand, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 16. Shri M.K. Raut, S/o Shri V.T. Raut, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 17. Shri Alok Shukla, S/o Late Shri T.C. Shukla, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 18. Shri Sunil Kujur S/o Shri P. Kujur, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 19. Shri B.L. Agrawal, S/o Shri R. K. Agrawal, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 20. Shri Satish Pandey, S/o Shri R.S. Pandey, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 21. Shri P. P. Soti, S/o Shri P. D. Soti, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 22. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Director, State Resource Center Rajya Shrot Nishakt Jan Sansthan, Samaj Kalyan Parisar, Mana, Dist Raipur Chhattisgarh 23. Shri Ashok Tiwari, Director, State Resource Center Rajya Shrot Nishakt Jan Sansthan, Samaj Kalyan Parisar, Mana, Dist Raipur Chhattisgarh 24. Shri Herman Khalkho, Dyp. Director, Social Welfare Department, Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 25. Shri M. L. Pandey, Adll. Director, Social Welfare Department, through Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (CG) 26. Shri Pankaj Verma, Dy. Director, Social Welfare Department, through Chief Secretary Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur (CG) 27. The Treasurer, Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 28. The Registrar, Firms And Societies, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 29. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch- Moti Bagh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 / 35 30. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch- New Mantralay Branch, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 31. State Resource Center (Rajya Shrot Nishakt Jan Sansthan) Samaj Kalyan Parisar, Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Through Its Director Samaj Kalyan Parisar , Mana District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Deverishi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent UOI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates For Respondent No.4, 6 to 13-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.14 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate (through online) For Respondent No.15 : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent No.16 : Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiya, Advocate For Respondent No.17 Mr. Aditya K Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ishaan Verma, Advocate For respondent No.18 : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.19 : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent Nos.20 to 26 : Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, J Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J CAV Order Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 1. Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of a writ of appropriate nature directing respondent No.5 CBI or any Special Commission or nodal agency, to register FIR and investigate in connection with alleged scam highlighted, as has been projected in writ petition, and also for initiation of departmental inquiry against respondents No.15 to 26. 4 / 35 2. Initially writ petition (criminal) was filed seeking above relief, however, learned Single Judge in order sheet dated 26.3.2018 observed that the petitioner has not sought relief for himself, the petition prima facie appears to be pro bono publico, therefore, directed the Registry to examine the matter and to list the matter before appropriate Bench. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that seeing the nature of allegations and prayer made, the initial writ petition was converted into Public Interest Litigation. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2004 a self- governing institute was formed and registered by respondent State in the name and style of ‘State Resource Centre’ (for persons with disability) (for short ‘SRC’) with the object of providing technical support to rehabilitation of persons with disability etc. In the year 2012, Physical Referral Rehabilitation Center (for short ‘PRRC’) is established under United Nation Convention for Rehabilitation of Person with Disability with an object to extend benefit to physically handicapped persons by providing them artificial limbs and accessories. SRC provided funds to PRCC for payment to employees as also for running the establishment, its functioning and purchase of equipments. This writ petition is filed raising alleged large scale bungling and siphoning of public funds, which may run into hundred of crores on the 5 / 35 ground that PRRC is operational only on papers without there being any visible tangible activity, the employees were shown to be appointed and working, but no recruitment process through advertisement or otherwise was ever drawn nor any hospital for disabled is established. However, the persons like petitioner and others have been shown to be appointed at different PRRC and large amount towards payment of salary was withdrawn on the strength of fake list of employees by showing them to be working at PRRC through bank account Nos.63006155111, 63000051762, 31647505404 of SRC maintained at State Bank of India, Raipur and shown to be paid in cash. Whereas, the persons like petitioner have never been applied in response to any advertisement for any post in the PRRC nor they have been paid any salary. It is further alleged that SRC was registered in the year 2004 but it never subjected its account for audit. It is also case of the petitioner that when he tried to get information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and made representation, he was threatened to dire consequences. 5. The Division Bench vide order dated 30.1.2020 disposed of public interest litigation bearing WPPIL No.53/2018 with the directions to the CBI to register FIR, seize relevant original records from the concerned department, organization and 6 / 35 offices throughout the State, make all possible endeavour to complete fair and independent investigation at the earliest. 6. Review petitions bearing Nos.43/2020 and 49/2020 came to be filed by respondent No.19 and respondent No.20 to writ petition respectively, seeking review of the order dated 30.1.2020 and the same were also dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2020. The order dated 30.1.2020 was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.3553/2020 wherein the order dated 30.1.2020 was set aside vide order dated 7.10.2021 and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration of the matter afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering appeal filed against judgment of this Court dated 30.1.2020 considered that there is nothing on record to indicate that all 31 respondents were duly served before the High Court, proceeded to pass final order. More so, in respect of allegations which are serious attributing criminality to high officials of the State Government and other persons. Set aside the order dated 30.1.2020 and relegated the parties by restoring writ petition to the file of High Court to its original number for considering and deciding it afresh in accordance with law. 7 / 35 8. After remand, on 29.10.2021 fresh notices were issued to respondent No.14 to 19 and upon service of notice, respondent Nos.15 to 19 put in appearance through their respective counsel on 24.1.2022. Service being not effected on respondent No.14, fresh notice was issued by registered post with A/D and after service of notice, respondent No.14 also put in appearance. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would argue that petitioner, who was appointed on contract basis in Swalamban Kendra in the year 2008, made several representations for his regularization on the post of Assistant Grade-III but when no heed was paid to his request, he approached the High Court seeking a direction for his regularization in service. During pendency of writ petition, petitioner has been asked to bring no-objection certificate from his parent department for regularization. As the petitioner has never applied for any post in PRRC pursuant to any recruitment process initiated through advertisement or otherwise, he inquired and came to know that salary is being drawn regularly in cash showing him to be working as Assistant Grade II in PRRC, as is discernible from Annexure P-8 to writ petition, which is the list of employees of PRRP to whom honorarium is paid. After conducting an inquiry, petitioner found that a financial scam of huge nature, 8 / 35 spanning across the districts of the State, have been committed and a large amount of money have been siphoned-off by many persons by organizing themselves in a planned manner. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition for direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other impartial agency to conduct investigation into the allegation of financial irregularities/ embezzlement of public money. Looking to seriousness of allegations levelled in writ petition, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to hold an independent inquiry and submit affidavit. The enquiry report submitted clearly records that financial irregularities have been found to hav been committed, clear information as to payment of salary to employees posted in PRRC is not available; audit of SRC has not been done for the last 14 years. Based on the report and affidavit submitted by Chief Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, the Court found, prima facie, substance in the allegations concerning misappropriation and siphoning of public funds and finding that no action has been taken to unearth the financial irregularity to ascertain the persons who have misappropriated public funds, the Court deemed proper to handover the matter to CBI for registration of FIR and investigation as also for initiating departmental proceedings against respondents No.15 to 26. 9 / 35 10.Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent State authorities in their return have admitted in categorical terms that the petitioner was not employee of PRCC then as to how salary is being withdrawn in the name of petitioner showing him to be working as Assistant Grade-II in PRRC, which is clear from Annexure P-8. There is no explanation as to how the salary could have been disbursed without there being recruitment of petitioner and others in PRRC. He referred Annexure R-1 to the return filed on behalf of the State to submit that crores of rupees has been released in favour of said institute which is never in existence and thereby crores of rupees of government ex-chequer has been embezzled by withdrawing the same through self-cheques. He submits that vide Annexure R-10, total 17 posts were sanctioned for establishment and operation of PRRC, however, no document is brought on record like advertisement, appointment order etc. showing filling-up of these sanctioned posts by way of regular recruitment process in accordance with law and at the same time, lakhs of rupees is provided by the State Resource Centre (SRC) to the PRRC for payment of salary to the employees. Its functioning and purchase of equipments etc. as also amount towards travelling allowance, dearness allowance were sanctioned and released for different years. There is no direct payment 10 / 35 of salary to the employees because E-code is never allotted/ generated and the cash amount was withdrawn for different purposes. He further submits that SRC is a society whereas the PRRC is the government entity under the Department of Social Welfare, therefore, it is impossible and questionable as to how the society manages the government department. 11.It is also claimed that about 22 to 25 artificial limbs are being manufactured every day in PRRC and since 2012, about 4314 persons have been provided artificial limbs and treatment free of cost, but not a single document has been annexed in support thereof showing purchase of machines for manufacturing of artificial limbs, the place where artificial limbs are manufactured and treatment is provided etc. It is also stand of respondent State that there is no other PRRC in the State, however, Annexure P-8 shows payment of remuneration to the employees of PRRC at Bilaspur. Further, there is no denial on behalf of the State authorities of the report and affidavit submitted pursuant to the direction issued by the Court and thus there is clear admissions of the allegations levelled by petitioner in writ petition. Despite aforementioned circumstances coupled with report submitted by the Finance Secretary and affidavit of Chief Secretary, no action has been taken by the authorities and instead, the Managing Committee of SRC, to cover up the illegal act of 11 / 35 embezzlement and misappropriation of huge public money, in its meeting dated 9.9.2019 resolved to dissolve SRC, close all bank accounts in the name of institute and to transfer the entire immovable assets of the institute to the State Resource and Rehabilitation Centre, Raipur. It was also resolved to close and file the proceedings initiated against the concerned officers. He submits that one of the signatories of the resolution dated 9.9.2019 was respondent No.26, who was not competent to sign the meetings because he was found guilty of charges of financial irregularities and the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, Raipur vide order dated 9.7.2018 directed to take back all financial powers from respondent No.26 and further not to allot him the works relating to SRC etc. All the above is nothing but smacks of a scam on the part of respondent authorities and their involvement in it. 12. He further contended that there is much harping by the respondent State on the factum of recovery of excess amount of Rs.5,83,304/- allegedly paid to petitioner, whereas, respondent No.15 vide order dated 6.8.2015 (Annexure RJ/2) has already directed for recovery of said amount from the officer responsible in making said payment to petitioner. He submits that it is well settled that if officials of high ranking government officials or influential persons are involved in 12 / 35 alleged crime, the Court, in order to do complete justice in the case, can handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. If the facts and circumstances pleaded in writ petition together with material brought on record in support thereof are seen, it clearly bring the present case within the purview of an exceptional case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary power for issuance of a direction for investigation by CBI or any impartial agency so that rampant misuse or misappropriation or embezzlement of public money and/or a scam involving huge public money i.e. more than thousand crores, may be unearthed and culprits are brought to book. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.4, 6 to 13 opposing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that SRC is a registered society formed under the National Programme for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities and was the Nodal Agency engaged in the field of planning, survey and executing plans, projects and schemes for the persons with disabilities and to provide for matters connected therewith. The SRC came to be dissolved in the year 2019. The Social Welfare Department of the State of Chhattisgarh is conducting various schemes for the holistic rehabilitation of persons with disabilities etc. and PRRC is one of the units of 13 / 35 the Social Welfare Department established in the year 2012 under the United Nation Convention for Rehabilitation of the Persons with Disabilities for providing artificial limbs and treatment to the persons with disabilities. The SRC and PRRC are functioning in one building at Mana, Raipur and they do not have any other unit or branch in the State. Total budget of PRRC ranges from Rs.34 to 50 Lakh per annum, whereas budgetary allocation of SRC ranges from Rs.60 lakh to Rs.1 Crore per annum. Thus, SRC and PRRC both operate in their respective fields with entirely different purposes, one is managed by the department of the State and another by office bearers. 14. Giving above background, learned Additional Advocate General argued that pursuant to the order dated 30.7.2018 by this Court in writ petition alleging scam of huge money, an inquiry was conducted by the Finance Department and report dated 28.9.2018 was submitted on 1.10.2018. In this inquiry, the points majorly raised by petitioner in writ petition was inquired and noticed as many as 31 financial irregularities, giving instances of misappropriation of funds, non-utilization of funds and adoption of wrong procedure as also details of officers who were found involved in commission of such irregularities. Based on this report, show-cause notices were issued to delinquents. Referring to documents brought on 14 / 35 record by way of additional affidavit dated 13.3.2019, he argued that remedial steps were taken to avoid occurrence such circumstances in future, as pointed out in writ petition. 15. Drawing attention of the Court towards the budgetary allocation of the SRC and PRRC, he submits that petitioner made allegation of scam of huge amount of more than Rs.1,000 crores, whereas entire budget of SRC and PRRC is not more than Rs.1 Crore per annum since inception i.e. from the year 2004 and 2012 respectively. Therefore, at best present case is of maladministration on account of non- availability of proper rules, guidelines and procedure controlling the functioning of the SRC and PRRC, that is to say, as to how recruitment is to be made, expenses are to be incurred and payments are to be made, to which petitioner is trying to give colour of large money scam in order to wreck his personal vengeance because he has been terminated from service. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for CBI investigation saying that the State police is fully equipped for the purpose, the case in hand is local in nature and does not have any inter-state or transnational ramifications so as to warrant investigation by CBI. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in 15 / 35 exceptional situations and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. In case at hand, the enquiry by a neutral department of the State has been conducted, the authority entrusted with matter has done its best in conducting inquiry after going through all the possible angles, after inquiry delinquents officers were issued show-cause notice and remedial measures were also taken for smooth functioning of the SRC and PRRC. No material or extraordinary circumstance has been brought on record or pointed out by petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that the investigation/enquiry conducted was faulty or false and the investigation by CBI or any other like agency is requisite. There is no specific pleading or evidence about siphoning of money, source of information and the role played by each respondents. Mere doubts expressed by the petitioner or possible theory put up by him, cannot be basis for interference by the Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunga Nima Lepcha vs. State of Sikkim, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 513. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No.14 has submitted that respondent No.14 was only ex-officio Chairman being the Minister In-charge at the time of registration of SRC i.e. in the 16 / 35 month of June, 2004, and prior to convening of first meeting of SRC, the portfolio of respondent No.14 was changed and she handed over the charge of ex-officio Chairman to the incumbent Minister. Respondent No.14 has not attended even a single meeting of SRC and as such, she has no role in any activity of SRC. He also submits that no relief is sought against respondent No.14. 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.15 also advanced the arguments in line of learned counsel for respondent No.19. He added that respondent No.15 retired from services in June, 2018, whereas first meeting of the committee was held in August, 2005 and as such he has not attended any meeting of the Committee. There is no direct allegation against respondent No.15. 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.16 would submit that the association of respondent No.16 with the society in question was limited to ex-officio capacity. He never participated in any meeting of the society and was never the part of any decision-making body or working committee, which can be seen from the minutes of meetings held on 11.8.2005 and thereafter. He further argued that financial operations of SRC were conducted with due diligence and transparency, salaries of employees were paid either through cheques or direct bank transfers and no 17 / 35 payment was ever made in cash. Due to absence of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in PRRC, Mana during financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15, funds were administratively routed through SRC for limited purpose of disbursing salaries, which too were duly recorded and accounted. Audit of SRC has been done upto financial year 2018-19 and submitted to Registrar of Society in which no irregularity of whatsoever nature is pointed out. 20. Learned counsel representing respondent No.18 would submit that respondent No.18 being the Secretary of the Women and Child Development Department was ex-officio member of the SRC. Vide order dated 28.5.2006 respondent No.18 was transferred and posted as Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The entire allegations levelled in writ petition are from the year 2013 when PRRC was formed. Hence, it is clear that respondent No.18 had played no role in any manner in connection with alleged misappropriation and siphoning of crores of Rupees. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.19 would submit that the High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, but it should only be exercised if the High Court after considering material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by CBI or by any other similar agency. In case at 18 / 35 hand, respondent No.19 has been arrayed as respondent in this writ petition only on the ground that at relevant point of time he was posted as Secretary, School Education Department and as such, he was an ex-officio member of the SRC. Respondent No.19 was never in direct control of the SRC or PRRC, he has never attended any meeting of the SRC nor taken any action in the matter and even there is no specific allegation against him. Even in the inquiry conducted by the State pursuant to the order of this Court, nothing has been found against respondent No.19 indicating his involvement in any manner with the alleged scam. Respondent No.19 has been impleaded in this writ petition on the basis of apprehension that as respondent No.19 is charge sheeted in connection with some other crime, the possibility of his involvement cannot be denied. Hence, the writ petition so far as it relates to respondent No.19 is concerned, the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Learned counsel for respondents No.20 to 26 would argue that petitioner alleged that there is a huge money scam that is done by the higher officials of the State and therefore, wanted action to be taken. However, except making bald allegations in writ petition, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the complaint that is made by the petitioner. The writ petitions contain vague and indefinite allegations and they are made 19 / 35 with ulterior motive to satisfy his personal grudge, which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He referred to the report of special audit, which is placed on record along with return filed on behalf of State as Annexure R-14, to submit that no illegality or irregularity was found to have been committed by any person in the functioning of SRC or PRRC and the irregularities unearthed in the inquiry conducted in pursuance of direction of this Court were on account of procedural flaws etc. and therefore, thereafter corrective measures were taken by issuing guidelines and instructions for proper administration. Since the higher authorities have already considered the grievance raised in writ petition and not found any criminality in an independent thorough enquiry, it can safely be said that there is no offence committed. Even, if the petitioner was aggrieved with the enquiry report, then he could have easily challenged the same before the competent Court on the grounds available to him. But, the said enquiry report was not challenged by the petitioner and the same attained finality. Even in this writ petition, petitioner has not placed on record anything which suggests that enquiry report is evasive. In support of his submissions, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1541. 20 / 35 23. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.17 adopted submissions made by learned counsel appearing for private respondents, primarily that respondent No.17 has been impleaded because he was ex-officio member of the SRC at some point of time being holding the post of Secretary. 24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent CBI would submit that pursuant to order passed by the Division Bench on 30.1.2020, FIR was registered, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.10.2021 set aside the order dated 30.1.2020 and while relegating the parties to High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has restrained the CBI from taking action in connection with FIR registered pursuant to the order dated 30.1.2020 of this Court and therefore, the investigation is kept on hold till final decision of the present writ petition. However, in case, any order in this writ petition is passed by this Court directing for investigation, then C.B.I. is ready to abide by all such order. 25. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents available in record. 26. Petitioner initially filed this writ petition as “WPCR”. Learned Single Judge upon hearing learned counsel for respective parties present therein and also considering the pleadings made and reliefs sought, observed that writ petition prima facie appears to be pro bono publico, therefore, directed the 21 / 35 Registry to examine the matter and list it before appropriate Bench. Accordingly, writ petition was thereafter converted into “WPPIL”. In proceeding dated 30.7.2018, this Court upon appreciating facts as pleaded in writ petition as also submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, directed respondent No.4-Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur to hold an independent inquiry into allegations made in writ petition. Pursuant thereto, respondent State submitted submission memo dated 1.10.2018 under affidavit of one Smt. Chameli Chandrakar, District Rehabilitation Officer, Bilaspur along with inquiry report under signature of the Chief Secretary dated 20.9.2018. In inquiry report it is mentioned that Secretary, General Administration and Finance Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, was directed to conduct inquiry and submit report. Accordingly, inquiry was commenced by the Secretary, General Administration Department and Finance Department, formulating three points of inquiry. It was concluded as follows: (a) Point No.1- PRRC is physically functioning in the building located at Mana, Raipur since 2012 till date of inquiry. 4341 patients were treated and provided artificial limbs; 10-15 patients are being benefited per day. 21 employees are working in PRRC. There is 22 / 35 no information available about payment of salary to employees and from where it was drawn. State Resources Centre (SRC) has not initiated proceeding for appointment of these employees. Since 2015, payment to the employees are being made through cheque. Earlier payment to employees was being made from different sources and as of now, salary of employees is being paid from State fund and helpless/unprotected fund. (b) Point No.2- Petitioner has been shown to be employee of SRC and his salary is drawn in cash, the Secretary in his report submitted that petitioner was for additional work of SRC. As per report of the department, petitioner’s substantial post was Assistant Grade-III at Self-employment Centre, Mathpuraina, Raipur from 22.9.2008 and since beginning, he was doing additional work of SRC, in the month of March, 2015 it is appearing that salary/wages has been paid from two institutions. Enquiry on allegation of cash withdrawal of salary is not possible due to non-availability of record. It is also mentioned that for special audit of SRC, the Social Welfare Department made request to the Finance Department on 30.8.2018 and the Director, 23 / 35 Treasury and Accounts, was directed to conduct special audit. In special audit report, the Auditor found commission of 31 different financial irregularities in Part-II and 06 financial irregularities in Part-III, which are extracted as under:- Part-III “1. वित्तीय र्ष 2004-05 से 2017-18 तक वित्तीय से बं धी नस्तितय क से धीरण नहीं विकय जान। 2. विनयवि हीं त विविन्न पदों पर विज्ञापन हीं त अनधिधीक$ त रूप से उल्ले धि(त शत* । 3.टॉ,क प जा क से धीरण में. अविनयविमेंतत। 4. कमेंचार श्री क दोंन धिसे हीं ठाक र क2 02 थान से गतन क से बं धी में. पष्टीकरण। 5. प.आर.आर.से. क कमेंचारिरय क2 अलग-अलग थान से गतन क9 स्तिथावित तथा विनयवि क मेंपदोंण्ड / प्रवि=य नहीं विकय जान। 6. श्री क दोंन धिसे हीं से विदों कमेंचार था । उनक मेंनदों य में. में हींगई त्ती आविदों सेस्ति?मेंधिलत करन क से बं धी में. पष्टीकरण।" (c) Point No.3- Recruitment proceeding was not initiated for appointment of employees in PRRC and list of employees is forged, it is concluded that 10 employees were shown to be employees for the period from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2014, their salary was withdrawn from C.P. Getlab from April, 2014 to February 2015; 14 employees have been shown to 24 / 35 be posted and their salary is drawn from the office of Joint Director, District Bilaspur through SRC. From March, 2015 to February 2016, from CP Gatlab and SRC; February 2016 to January 2017 from same institutions and from 24.1.2017t o till date of enquiry i.e. August-September, 2018 from PRRC and helpless/unprotected funds. 27. After receipt of report, the Chief Secretary further issued certain directions so as to stop financial irregularities/other irregularities in future, which reads as under:- i. रज्य स्त्रो2त विनBशजान से थान ए इसे प्रकर क उद्दे श्य क9 पGवित हीं त गविठात से2सेयविटॉय क9 गवितविधिधीय क से चालन क धिलय पष्टी वित्तीय ए प्रशसेविनक व्यथा क9 जा । ii. विविन्न गवितविधिधीय में. व्यय हीं त से थान क द्वार पष्टी रूप से विर्षक कय य2जान बंनकर उसेमें. लगन ल विर्षक व्यय क आ कलन विकय जा । सेथा हीं उसेक अपन शसे विनकय से विधिधीतJ अनमें2दोंन करय जा । iii.विKजाकल रिरKरल रिरहींLविबंलटॉ शन से न्टॉर क से चालन में. शसेन से तथा रज्य स्त्रो2त विनBशजान से थान से विकसे प्रकर सेहींय2ग सेमेंन्य विकय जाय ग इसे हीं त पष्टी विदोंश-विनदों*श विग द्वार शघ्र हीं जार विकय जा.। iv. व्यय हीं त पष्टी वित्तीय विनयमें ए सेक्षमें प्रधिधीकर क विनधीरण रज्य स्त्रो2त विनBशजान से थान द्वार जार विकय जा । इसे हीं त विग द्वार सेपरविजान तथा में,विनटॉरग क9 पख्त व्यथा क9 जा । 25 / 35 v. कमेंचारिरय क9 आश्यकत तथा उनक चायन हीं त य2ग्यत क मेंपदों ड ए प्रवि=य क विनधीरण विग द्वार विकय जाय तथा प्रवि=य क पलन सेविनस्तिश्चात विकय जाय । vi. छत्तीसेगढ़ से2सेयटॉ रधिजाटॉTकरण अधिधीविनयमें 1973 (से श2धीन 1998) क9 धीर 28 क तहींत से था द्वार अप विक्षत जानकरिरय धिजासेमें. परिरविक्षत ल (-जा2(, आय-व्यय पत्रक आविदों सेस्ति?मेंधिलत हींL, क2 प जायक K?से ए से2सेयटॉजा क2 प्रवितर्ष 30 अप्रLल से 90 विदोंसे क तर जामें विकय जान क प्रधीन हींL धिजासेक पलन सेविनस्तिश्चात करय जाय । सेथा हीं अधिधीविनयमें क9 धीर 27 क तहींत आमेंसे बंLठाक आय2जान कर उसेक9 जानकर प जायक K?से ए से2सेयटॉजा क2 सेमेंय पर उपलब्धी करय जान अविनय हींL। अधिधीविनयमें में. प्रधीन अनसेर कयहीं क पलन से थान द्वार विकय जान विगय सेमेंक्ष क मेंध्यमें से सेविनस्तिश्चात विकय जाय । vii. से था रज्य स्त्रो2त विनBशजान से थान क विकय गय विश र्ष अ क क्षण प्रवित दोंन में. पय गई विविन्न वित्तीय अविनयविमेंततओं क9 पनर$धित्ती र2कन हीं त सेमेंजा कल्यण विग क विनदों*शन में. से2सेयविटॉय में. विनयविमेंत बंLठाक, आ तरिरक ऑविडटॉ, पष्टी वित्तीय शविय क विनधीरण सेविहींत अन्य सेसे गत कदोंमें तत्कल उठाय जा । viii. अन्य यथा आश्यक कयहीं।" 28. As earlier affidavit was not found as per direction of this Court issued vide order dated 30.7.2018, after taking several adjournments an affidavit was filed on 02.10.2018 in which the Chief Secretary stated that in special audit conducted under the instruction of the Department of Social Welfare, as many as 31 financial irregularities have been detected. 26 / 35 29. From the affidavit submitted by the Chief Secretary, audit report filed under signature of Chief Secretary, it is apparent that as many as 31 financial irregularities were found to have been committed in managing and running of SRC and PRRC. As per pleadings made in reply, huge amount is being made available for managing and running of SRC and PRRC. Respondent State along with its reply has not submitted details and description of machinery purchased for manufacturing of artificial limbs or vouchers/bills of purchase of artificial limbs, if any, from others. List of beneficiaries / patients who were provided treatment as well as artificial limbs. However, the budget allocated has been extended in each of the year. 30. In reply of respondent State it is pleaded that SRC has been established under the national program for rehabilitation of persons with disabilities scheme which is a registered society under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act. To keep transparency in administration work of the Society, higher officials of government departments are being appointed as Member of the Society. Managing Committee constituted consists of the Secretaries of different departments to be its members. 31. In reply submitted on behalf of private respondents also there is mention of constitution of Managing Committee of which 27 / 35 Secretary of Town Administration and Development Department, Panchayat and Rural Development, School Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Public Health Department; Deputy Secretary of Finance Department and Deputy Director of Panchayat and Welfare Department were ex-officio members. 32. From the aforementioned facts available in record, the fact that commission of financial irregularities has been admitted by the Secretary concerned in his report, which is also reflecting from the audit report submitted by the State Government that no account has been maintained, no permission for making expenditure has been obtained etc., it can be seen that there is prima facie material available in record before this Court indicating that huge money, if not thousand crores, is involved causing loss to the State ex- chequer and the State Government has not taken any concrete steps in this regard. 33. Point with regard to issuance of direction for inquiry/investigation by special agency including Central Bureau of Agency (CBI) was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vineet Narain vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 266 and it was observed thus:- “55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is 28 / 35 expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to under-developed countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in 29 / 35 other countries: R v Secy. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.” 34. In case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that public office cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The decision making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime-doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation. It was also observed that corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of the moral fabric of the society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court also highlighted need of fair and independent investigation by observing thus:- “86. The Criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. It is equally important that interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or highjack the investigation so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping the punitive course of law. These are important facets of the rule of law. Breach of rule of law, in our opinion, amounts to negation of equality under Article 14. Section 6-A fails in the context of these facets of Article 14. The argument of Mr. L. Nageswara Rao that the rule of law is not above law 30 / 35 and cannot be a ground for invalidating legislations overlooks the well settled position that rule of law is a facet of equality under Article 14 and breach of rule of law amounts to breach of equality under Article 14 and, therefore, breach of rule of law may be a ground for invalidating the legislation being in negation of Article 14.” 35. Hon’ble Supreme Court in many of its decisions observed that direction for CBI inquiry would not be in a routine manner but the Court has to be cautious and sparingly, only in exceptional situations, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct investigation by CBI. In case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and otheres, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus”- “70…. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights…..” 36. In case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, UP and others vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that High Court can direct an inquiry by CBI 31 / 35 against a person, if High Court after considering the material on record comes to conclusion that such material does disclose prima facie case calling for investigation by CBI or any other similar agencies. 37. In case at hand, this Court after converting WPCR into WPPIL, looking to nature of pleadings and allegations made therein, directed the Chief Secretary of the State to hold an independent inquiry into the allegations contained in writ petition and if allegations are found to be true, then it requires deeper look. After the order of this Court, special audit was directed by the Chief Secretary and in special audit, as many as 31 financial irregularities were found which were also part of the report submitted by the Chief Secretary and in his affidavit also. From the aforementioned facts and affidavit submitted by the Chief Secretary, the allegations as levelled in writ petition prima facie found to be correct. 38. Further, from the documents available in record i.e. letter dated 9.7.2018 of the Special Secretary, Social Welfare Department, it is appearing that employee holding post of Deputy Director in the office of Social Welfare Directorate against whom out of 10 allegations, four were found not proved and six were found partially proved and directed not to allot major financial works to him. 32 / 35 39. During pendency of this writ petition and after enquiry, decision was taken by the Managing Committee to dissolve SRC. Copy of proceeding is filed as Annexure D-13 along with affidavit of the District Rehabilitation officer, Social Welfare Department, Bilaspur on 13.3.2019. 40. After special audit, show cause notices were issued to some of the employees of the State Government who were holding similar posts and according to proceeding drawn by the Secretary-cum-Director of SRC, in proceeding dated 9.9.2019 it is recorded that general meeting of Managing Committee of the Institutions is being organized in regular intervals of time. Approval has been obtained from Competent Authority with respect to procedural irregularities found in special audit and the Managing Committee recorded satisfaction on the proceeding drawn and accordingly it is decided to close proceedings initiated against all employees which appears to be contrary to stand taken by private respondents / Members of Committee. 41. In case at hand, there is specific allegation that petitioner has been shown to be employed with SRC in which he was not employed at any point of time and further money in his name is also withdrawn as salary. Though there was system of payment of salary through e-account / bank account of concerned employees but as per allegation there was cash 33 / 35 withdrawal of salary in name of petitioner and some other employees. In the affidavit submitted by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, as many as 31 financial irregularities have been found in Special Audit conducted through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, indicating huge corruption. 42. From the above proceeding drawn by the Managing Committee forming part of reply submitted by respondent State dated 27.7.2022, it is clear that how such a serious issue of financial irregularities and corruption has been dealt with. Private respondents are highly placed officials of the State Government, some of them have already been retired, therefore, there is all apprehension that investigation/inquiry may be influenced. 43. Though respondent No.14, the then Minister of concerned department has been arrayed as party respondent but no relief has been prayed against her in this writ petition and therefore, this order shall not be in respect of respondent No.14. 44. As far as decision in case of Shiv Shankar Shankar (supra), relied upon by respondents No.20 to 26, is concerned, the same is of no help to them being distinguishable on facts. In that case, two public interest litigation, first relating to money laundering by family of the Chief Minister and second relating 34 / 35 to obtaining of mining lease by the Chief Minister in his favour by misusing his official position. Bonafides of petitioner in that case were found doubtful because of old animosity and personal vendetta against the Chief Minister. Further, allegations made there were not supplemented by any kind of evidence. 45. In the case at hand, as submitted by learned counsel for respondent CBI that pursuant to earlier order of this Court, FIR No.RC2222020A0001 PS SPE/CBI/AC-IV/Bhopal dated 5.2.2020 is already registered, however, in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is kept in hold. Meaning thereby, FIR is already registered. Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside earlier order of this Court dated 30.1.2020 only on the ground that private respondents were not noticed and order is passed without hearing them. Now the respondents after notice appeared and have not disputed that they were also members of the Managing Committee. However, the report of the Chief Secretary submitted in the proceeding remain unshaken. Hence, having considered the law laid down and observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred decisions and facts discussed above, we are of the view that the matter requires fair and independent investigation by the CBI to unearth the truth. 35 / 35 46. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:- • The CBI shall proceed further with FIR No.RC2222020A0001 at P.S. SPE/CBI/AC-IV/Bhopal dated 5.2.2020. • The CBI shall seize relevant original records from the concerned department, organization and offices throughout the State within 15 days from the date of registration of FIR, if not done. • The CBI shall make all possible endeavour to complete fair and independent investigation at the earliest. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge roshan/-