The Delhi High Court has put in abeyance its order directing initiation of criminal proceedings against six former and serving Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers [Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors].
On October 6, Justice Madhu Jain had ordered action against the CBI officials for allegedly making false statements before a court about correspondence with the government while challenging the discharge of a former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer in a case.
The Court had allowed IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's plea and directed the Special Judge (CBI) to file a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad.
However, in an order passed on November 3, Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the direction will remain in abeyance.
The matter will be heard next on February 4, 2027.
The Court passed the order after two former CBI officers - Sushil Dewan and Raman Tyagi - filed applications seeking recall of the order.
The applicants, supported by the CBI, argued that the judgment was passed without hearing them. Only Dewan was a party to the appeal. He claimed he was served on a wrong email ID. The other five accused were never issued notice.
The case arose from a CBI case against Aggarwal for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In January 2016, the High Court had held the sanction for his prosecution invalid, following which he was discharged.
The CBI subsequently considered challenging that decision before the Supreme Court. However, the Ministry of Law and Justice opined in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to pursue the matter further. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) communicated the opinion to the CBI in July 2016.
When Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation, the CBI, in its August 2, 2016 reply, stated that correspondence with the Ministry regarding further legal action was “under way”.
However, the High Court found that no such correspondence was taking place. Instead, the CBI was internally considering whether to seek reconsideration and obtain further legal opinion.
It examined successive drafts of the CBI's reply and found that an earlier draft expressly recorded that the DoPT had rejected the proposal to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. That statement was subsequently deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence with the Ministry was underway.
The Court held that the alteration was not merely an “imprecise choice of words”. It found a "reasonable foundation" for the allegation that a false statement had been placed before the court and that an inquiry was "expedient in the interests of justice".
It also rejected reliance on the fact that the CBI subsequently corrected the position in an August 9, 2016 reply or that Aggarwal had suffered no prejudice.
“The respective acts of preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, read with the knowledge disclosed by the preceding drafts and file-notings, furnish a reasonable basis for the prima facie inference that the concerned officers participated in advancing a claim which was known to be inconsistent with the existing position. These circumstances disclose substantially more than the mere failure of a party to establish a contention,” the Court said.
Therefore, it allowed Aggarwal’s plea and directed the filing of a complaint.
[Read Order]