Supreme Court Declines Whistleblower IFS Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi's Plea For CBI Probe Into Alleged Forgery By DoPT

A division bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing Chaturvedi’s appeal against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to decline his request for an investigation by the central agency.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde urged the apex court to set aside the high court’s order denying a CBI enquiry, saying, “This prayer is about criminality in the face of law…[The government] lied on an affidavit submitted to the court.” He added:

“The Central Administrative Tribunal will look into issues regarding eligibility – whether other candidates were eligible, conducting fresh selection process, etc. But as far as knocking out is concerned, as far as forgery & fabrication is concerned…”

However, the bench expressed its disinclination to interfere with the impugned ruling. Justice Manoj Misra told the senior counsel, “So your contention is that your application was manipulated to show that it was not received in time…But this aspect can also be considered by the tribunal which can look at the records and come to a definitive conclusion.”

The bench finally disposed of the special leave petition with an order affirming the high court’s decision to not direct a CBI probe into the allegations of discrimination and record fabrication. However, the top court clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances. The bench pronounced:

“Since the matter is at large before the Central Administrative Tribunal, we need not say anything further in this regard. It is for the CAT to look into the matter on its own merits and take an appropriate decision. However, [it] is submitted that this case is also of alleged forgery and fabrication of records and this should be investigated by the CBI. It will be too much for this court to say anything in this regard. If it is the case of petitioner that some forgery or fabrication of records took place, it would be open for him to take appropriate steps in that regard in accordance with law before the appropriate court.”

Background

Sanjiv Chaturvedi, a 2002-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the Uttarakhand cadre and anti-corruption crusader, alleged discrimination in the selection process of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), for which the Union Public Services Commission had invited applications. Chaturvedi claimed that even though he sent his application, through the departmental channel within the deadline and was fully qualified, he was not called to participate in the selection process, while others – including the candidate who was ultimately selected – did not meet the eligibility conditions, but were allowed to participate, nevertheless. The IFS officer has accused the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of forging and fabricating records to justify overlooking the petitioner’s application for the advertised post.

Before the Uttarakhand High Court, Chaturvedi not only sought directions for setting aside the selection process and conducting the entire exercise afresh, but also prayed for the Central Bureau of Investigation to be entrusted with the responsibility of conducting a “fair, transparent, and impartial investigation into forgery, conspiracy, and other criminal offences perpetrated in the said recruitment”. A division bench of the high court headed by Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi directed the transfer of the petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital, along with the complete records, to decide the first two prayers, but refused to order a CBI probe into the allegations of forgery or fabrication. In its judgement, the bench observed:

“We are not satisfied with this explanation of the petitioner. It is well settled that the high court cannot, at the drop of a hat, order investigation by the CBI, merely because there are allegations of forgery and fabrication made by the petitioner in the writ petition…So far as the third relief is concerned, we are not inclined to grant the same in the light of the aforesaid observations.”

Case Title

Sanjiv Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11663 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order