Memo.No:1396, Dt:27-10-1977

Vigilance Commission - impleading before APAT

*****

Ref:-    1. From the Vigilance Commissioner, D.O.Lr.No.1836NC/ A/77-4, dt.25.5.77.

2. From the Vigilance Commissioner, D.O.Lr.No.1836NC/ A/77-4, dt.27.7.77.

3. From Sri Sardar Ali Khan, Government Pleader for GAD., D.O.No.nil, dt.29.7.77.

@@@@@ 

The Vigilance Commissioner has stated that in Representation Petition Nos.185/77 and 290/77 filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, he has been impleaded as one of the respondents and that the Tribunal has issued Rule Nisi in these cases to him for production of records. He has further stated that the Vigilance Commission is only a recommendatory body and not the disciplinary authority vested with ti1e power of imposing any punishment on the delinquent officers. So far as the records of the Commission are concerned, there will not be anything which either the petitioner or the Government or the Competent authority concerned do not have with them and that the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the advice of Vigilance Commission will always be available both with the Government as also with the petitioner. Except for the observations made by the Vigilance Commissioner in the note file leading to the advice tendered by him, there will not be any other relevant papers which may be required by the Tribunal or any Court having jurisdiction. He has also added that the Vigilance Commission has not been impleaded so far as a respondent in any Writ Petition filed before the High Court. As it appears that there is an increasing tendency to implead the Vigilance commissioner as a respondent, he has requested that the matter may be taken up with the Administrative Tribunal.

(i) to ensure that the Vigilance Commissioner is not impleaded as a respondent in any of the Representation Petitions filed before the Administrative Tribunal unless the petitioner claimed any relief from the Vigilance Commissioner; 

(ii) as the records of the Vigilance Commission are of secret nature and copies of the reports of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the advice tendered by the Vigilance Commission would always be available both with Government and the petitioner, it may not be necessary for the Vigilance commissioner to cause the production of the records before the Tribunal and if for any reason the Tribunal deems it fit to call for the records, to claim privilege under the Indian Evidence Act,

(iii) to impress on all the Government Pleaders concerned that even at the admission stage, they should take care to point out to the Tribunal how a petitioner cannot pray for any relief from the Vigilance Commissioner, as he does not pass any final order in any matter relating to the petitioner and to see that the cause title of the R.P. is suitably amended to delete the Vigilance Commissioner from the list of Respondents.

Rule.12(1) of the Rules to regulate the proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of article 225 of the Constitution which is applicable to the proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by virtue of para 6(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order, 1975 provides that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application and on such terms as may appear to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the petitions, be added. By virtue of the provisions of the said rule 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has power at any stage of the proceedings before it either upon or without any application in this regard, to order that the name of any party improperly joined be struck out. Similarly, it has power to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined be added.

In view of this all Government Pleaders are, therefore, requested for the following reasons, to urge before the Tribunal at the admission stage itself for striking off the name of the Vigilance Commissioner whenever he is impleaded as respondent in Representation Petitions and to claim privilege under section 123 or section 124 of the Evidence Act whenever the Tribunal calls for records of the Vigilance Commission:

(a) In a R.P. no relief could be sought against the Vigilance Commissioner and therefore, he is not a necessary party to a case like the one heard by the Administrative Tribunal. Moreover, he exercises only an advisory jurisdiction.

 

(b) A Rule Nisi issued to the Vigilance Commissioner may not have any greater advantage as there is no record available with the Vigilance Commissioner which he can produce and which is not otherwise available with the Government, or the petitioner.

 

(c) The disclosure of a confidential record of the Vigilance Commission if any, such as a note file or other, will not be in the public interest, since the very object of setting up Vigilance Commission is to eliminate corruption and other like evils from public life which necessarily need certain amount of secrecy failing which the functioning of the Vigilance Commission is bound to be hampered.

The Government Pleaders are further informed that this issue is also being taken up with the Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal separately.