Rahul Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission & ANR.
$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4053/2025 RAHUL SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.
Siddharth Satija, Ms.
SowjhaniyaShankran, Mr.
Akash Sachan, Ms. AnukaBachawat, Advs.
versus CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION & ANR......Respondents Through:
Ms. Ttini Basu (Sr. Standing Counsel for R-1/CVC) Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. George PothanPoohilote, Mr. Prakash Kumar, Mr. Anurag Jan, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
O R D E R
% 01.04.2025 CM APPL.18784/2025 (Exemption) 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4053/2025 3.
The present petition filed by the petitioner seeks that the respondents be directed to complete the investigation, relating to Complaint No. 13073/2023 dated 22.04.2023 (hereinafter 'the complaint') submitted by the petitioner before the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC / respondent no.1), within a period of one month.
4.
The aforesaid complaint pertains to various allegations raised by the petitioner as regards the alleged irregularities committed by the Indian The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) in conducting the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager (Information Technology / IT). In the said complaint, the petitioner has raised the following allegations - i. The eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager -IT in terms of the 'IRCTC Recruitment Policy & Rules2007' had been manipulated by subsequent letters dated 13.10.2014, 29.10.2015 and 18.06.2015 thereby granting undue advantage to otherwise ineligible candidates;
ii. The LDCE was cancelled and subsequently re-conducted without any valid reason. Furthermore, absence of any third party institution in conducting the LDCE raised concerns regarding transparency and fairness in the evaluation process.
5.
The said complaint was forwarded by the CVC to the Chief Vigilance Officer, IRCTC (respondent no.2) for investigation vide email dated 26.06.2023.
6.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 (Chief Vigilance Officer, IRCTC) submits that the complaint of the petitioner has been investigated, and the same has culminated in an investigation report dated 08.05.2024. In terms of the said report, it has been found that no further action is warranted. The same is however controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.
In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the investigation report dated 08.05.2024be forwarded to the CVC (respondent no.1) who shall be at liberty to examine the same and take further action, if warranted, as per the extant regulations/guidelines. The respondent no.1 shall endeavour to examine the matter, as expeditiously as The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
possible.
8.
The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 1, 2025/uk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.