'Why do you use machinery for political battles?': SC pulls up CBI, rejects its plea for Jharkhand probe

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea of CBI seeking its nod to initiate a preliminary enquiry into allegations of irregularities in appointments and promotions in Jharkhand Assembly Secretariat, saying why was the central agency using the machinery in “political battles”.

The top court, on November 14, last year, had stayed the Jharkhand High Court verdict of September 23, 2024, which directed the CBI to enquire into the alleged irregularities in appointments and promotions in the state assembly.

On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an interim application of the CBI seeking the nod to initiate a preliminary enquiry.

“Why do you use the machinery for your political battles? … We have told you so many times," the CJI observed while dismissing the plea of the probe agency.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, said, "It is shocking that when matters come up, the CBI appears in that court beforehand."

"Not in this case," Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the CBI, said.

"Not only here, in many cases, in West Bengal, my lords have seen it," Sibal contended.

The law officer said that the reason is obvious and the CBI appears when there is an offence.

Earlier, the Justice Gavai-led bench had stayed the High Court verdict, which directed the CBI to enquire into the alleged irregularities in appointments and promotions.

The bench had then agreed to hear the plea filed by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and others challenging the September 23, 2024, judgment of the high court.

There was no effective hearing in the case after November 14, 2024.

One of the pleas, filed through advocate Tulika Mukherjee, said the high court had erred in directing the CBI to enquire into the issue in the absence of any criminality or cognisable offence, that too in a civil matter which involves complicated and pure questions of law and facts with respect to service jurisprudence and others.

"The high court erred in directing the CBI to investigate as the first investigating agency in the absence of any cogent and convincing reason that the state-investigating agency is not fit to investigate into the alleged irregularity or illegality," it said.

The plea said in the present case, there is no FIR and no cognisable offence which can be made out.

It claimed there is "no proof of exchange of money, there is no proof of giving or taking of money, there is no proof of fraud and no criminality can be made out."

The plea said the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rule, 2003, came into existence on March 10, 2003.

It said to accomplish the work of the legislative assembly secretariat and the assembly committees, the recruitment process was initiated.

It said that proper steps, including publishing advertisements in newspapers, issuance of admit cards, and conducting examinations and interviews (wherever required), were taken and only thereafter were employees recruited.

"Accordingly, appointments and promotions were made in the year 2003-2007. After completion of the recruitment process, some persons allegedly recorded few people talking about irregularities committed in the appointment process. This unverified voice recording was converted into a compact disk and submitted before the Speaker, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha," the plea said.

It said in October 2007, a committee comprising of five members was constituted to look into the matter arising out of the unverified voice recordings.

The recommendation of the committee was presented in August 2008 before the Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly which was opposed by two members of the panel itself, the plea said.

It said later, the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Parliamentary Affairs) issued a notification in July 2014 and appointed a former judge of the Jharkhand High Court for inquiring into the alleged irregularities in the appointment and promotions of employees in the Jharkhand Assembly.

It said a report dated July 12, 2018, was submitted by the commission headed by the former judge before the then governor in which recommendations on 30 points of reference were made.

The plea said the high court had failed to appreciate that the report of the Commission was never communicated to the state government as contemplated under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.

"The high court failed to appreciate that the then Governor vide letter... dated September 10, 2018, requested the then Speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly to take appropriate action in light of the recommendations of the report of the one-man judicial commission...," it said.

The plea said that pursuant to the letter issued by the then governor, the Speaker gave approval for the compulsory retirement of two officers through notifications dated August 26, 2019.

It said that in August 2022, the state government was requested to appoint another commission for the interpretation of complicated questions of law and facts involved in the recommendations of the report given by the earlier commission.

The plea said the high court failed to appreciate that the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, on the basis of the report and ATR, was acting upon the same for its implementation.

The high court had delivered the verdict on a plea which raised the issue of alleged irregularities in matter of public employment in the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha.