Delhi High Court Allows Proceedings Against Ex-CCI Officer Over Witness Tampering In ONGC Cement Cartel Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by former Competition Commission of India Deputy Director (Law) Vijay Bishnoi against disciplinary proceedings over allegations that he tampered with witness statements during the CCI's investigation into alleged bid rigging in oil well cement tenders.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the CCI had duly approved the Draft Chargesheet and that the Memo of Charge issued on October 3, 2023 was the same charge approved by the Commission.

The Court therefore directed that the disciplinary proceedings, which have stalled since 2023, resume from the stage at which they stood and that the inquiry be completed within six months, after which the Disciplinary Authority must pass its final order.

"Since the disciplinary proceedings have remained stalled since the Interim Order, and the Appellant has remained under suspension since 19.05.2023, it is expedient and in the interest of both Parties that the inquiry proceeds and be brought to a conclusion without further delay in a timebound manner. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings shall continue from the stage at which they stood at the relevant time. The Inquiring Authority shall conclude the inquiry, and the Disciplinary Authority shall pass its final order, within six months from the date of this Judgment."

The case arose from an ONGC complaint dated July 31, 2020 alleging bid rigging and anti competitive practices in oil well cement tenders. During searches at India Cements in December 2022, statements of two officials were recorded.

Bishnoi was later accused of tampering with the statements, suspended on May 19, 2023. The Single Judge had rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding that the CCI had approved the Draft Chargesheet on August 4, 2023, which was substantially the same as the charge memo later issued.

Before the High Court, Bishnoi argued that the charge memo lacked the CCI's approval required under Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and also challenged the witness list, corrigendum and restrictions on his defence documents.

On the approval of the charge memo, the Court found that the CCI's records established that it had approved the Draft Chargesheet and that the charge memo issued to Bishnoi was the same document.

The production of the departmental record before the Bench also addressed the grievance that the Single Judge had not examined the original record.

The court held that the witness list was already part of the approved Draft Chargesheet and therefore did not require fresh approval. The November 17, 2023, corrigendum merely corrected a clerical error and did not change the substance of the allegations.

"As regards the Corrigendum, it amended the Statement of Imputations after the approval relied upon by the Respondents. The Respondents submit that the amendment was only clarificatory, and the record supports this position. The change was clerical, as it merely corrected an error in expression without altering the substance of the imputation. Therefore, the absence of any record showing that the amendment was placed before the CCI does not affect its validity, since a correction of this nature did not require separate approval by the CCI."

On the Chairperson's direction, the Court held that the October 3, 2023 direction to issue the charge memo was administrative and merely gave effect to the CCI's earlier approval. It did not amount to the Chairperson exercising the disciplinary power vested in the CCI.

Whether Bishnoi actually tampered with the statements of Swaminathan and Parthasarathy, the Court said, must be decided by the Inquiry Authority on evidence.

The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and directed the disciplinary inquiry, stalled since 2023, to resume and be completed within six months after which the Disciplinary Authority must pass its final order.

For Appellant: Harin P. Raval, Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocates along with Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Ramneek Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Urmi H. Raval, Shreya Bansal, Shrestha Narayan, Mukul Yadav and Asmita Singh, Advocates

For Respondents: Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior Advocate along with Shlok Chandra, Parikshit Singh Bhati, K. S. Rekhi and Lolita Crasta, Advocates