Delhi HC Upholds Charge Memo Against CCI Official Over Alleged Statement Tampering In Google Play Store Probe

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to quash a charge memorandum issued against Competition Commission of India Deputy Director (Law) Vijay Bishnoi.

The disciplinary proceedings arise from allegations that he tampered with statements recorded during search and seizure proceedings in the Google Play Store antitrust investigation.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected Bishnoi's challenge to the charge memorandum. The court held that the Competition Commission was not required to grant fresh approval before issuing it merely because the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had rendered its first-stage advice in the meantime.

The court also vacated its December 9, 2024 interim order staying the disciplinary inquiry.

The court, however, left it open to Bishnoi to raise all objections on the merits before the disciplinary authority.

The disciplinary proceedings stem from complaints received in April 2023 alleging that statements recorded during search and seizure proceedings in CCI Case No. 35 of 2020, involving Google's Play Store billing policies, had been tampered with.

Bishnoi was placed under suspension on May 19, 2023. The Commission decided to initiate major penalty proceedings against him on June 27, 2023. It later approved the draft charge sheet at its meeting on August 4, 2023.

The CVC issued its first-stage advice on September 25, 2023. The charge memorandum was issued on October 3, 2023.

Before the High Court, Bishnoi argued that once the CVC rendered its first-stage advice, the matter had to be placed before the Commission again. He contended that the charge memorandum was invalid because it had not received fresh approval from the competent disciplinary authority.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the Commission had already approved the draft charge sheet on August 4, 2023. The CVC's advice did not alter the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents or list of witnesses. Therefore, no fresh approval was required before the charge memorandum was issued.

"Viewed in this light, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29th November, 2012 cannot be read as mandating fresh approval of an unchanged charge-sheet merely because CVC advice was received in the intervening period," the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the CCI's objections on maintainability and res judicata. It held that Bishnoi's earlier writ petitions had been withdrawn without any adjudication on merits. They therefore did not prevent him from challenging the charge memorandum in the present proceedings.

The court also rejected Bishnoi's reliance on an internal noting dated September 29, 2023. It held that the noting could not be read in isolation. It expressly recorded that the Commission had already approved initiation of major penalty proceedings on June 27, 2023 and the draft charge sheet on August 4, 2023. The Chairperson's subsequent direction merely authorised issuance of the already approved charge memorandum, the Court said.

Finally, the court found no material to suggest that the Commission's meeting on August 4, 2023 was improperly convened or that its minutes inaccurately recorded the decision. It held that Bishnoi's procedural objections, if raised before the disciplinary authority, must be considered before any final order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan with Advocates Sanjiv Kr. Saxena, Ramneek Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Asmita Singh

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