2017 (1) TMI 1763 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Shri Karnail Singh, IPS, to the post of Director, Enforcement - Compliance with Fundamental Rule 56 or not - Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - A perusal of Clause(d) of Section 25 reveals, that the appointment of the Director, Enforcement could not be for a period less than two years from the date on which an incumbent assumes his office. A statutory rule can never override a legislative enactment, and as such, the date of superannuation would have no consequence whatsoever with reference to Clause (d), which is explicit and clear - The mandate contained in Section 25 of the Act, leaves no room for any doubt, that even if there had been a legislative enactment to the contrary, the instant provision, mandating a period of not less than 2 years, from the date on which the incumbent assumes office, could not have been varied. The instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Union of India to issue a fresh order of appointment, in consonance with, and in compliance of Section 25(d) of the Act, within one week from today.

Summary

Issues:
Appointment of Director, Enforcement in compliance with Fundamental Rule 56 and Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appointment of the Director, Enforcement, specifically addressing the compliance with Fundamental Rule 56 and Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The Attorney General representing the Union of India stated that the appointment of the Director was made in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56, allowing the appointment only until the date of superannuation in the Indian Police Service. However, the petitioner contested this, citing Section 25 of the Act, which mandates that the Director of Enforcement shall hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date of assuming office.

The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 25 of the Act in detail, emphasizing that a statutory rule cannot override a legislative enactment. It was highlighted that the appointment duration specified in Section 25(d) must be adhered to, irrespective of any other law in force. The Court concluded that the provision in Section 25 of the Act clearly mandates a minimum tenure of two years for the Director of Enforcement, and this provision prevails over any conflicting legislative enactment.

As a result of the analysis, the Court disposed of the petition with a directive to the Union of India to issue a fresh appointment order for the Director of Enforcement in compliance with Section 25(d) of the Act. The new appointment order should allow the selected Director to hold office for a period of two years from the date of assuming office, ensuring adherence to the statutory requirement outlined in the Act.