Special CBI Court Discharges ex-OSD of Former Delhi Minister

An FIR was registered on 28th December 2016 against Dr Anup Mohta and Dr Nikunj Aggarwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) based on a written complaint from Sh. K.S. Meena, Dy. Secy. (Vig.), GNCTD, Directorate of Vigilance, New Delhi under 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and S. 13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) (Before the amendment of 2018). The investigation was initiated.  

The allegations were that Anup Mohta approved the appointment of Dr Nikunj Aggarwal to the post of Sr. Resident (Ortho) on an ad hoc basis whereas at that time this post was not vacant at Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya (CNBC). It alleged that the appointment was illegal and in total disregard of rules and procedure.  

The investigating agency after analysing the materials collected concluded that the offences were committed as alleged. There was no proposal found from the department to engage a Sr. Resident (Ortho), no advertisements were issued by the hospital for the selection of this post and nor any walk-in interviews were conducted. It was also found that Dr Nikunj Aggarwal on plain paper made a handwritten application for this post and the director of CNBC, Dr Anup Mohta approved the appointment without following any procedure. Further, it was found that Dr Aggarwal requisitioned as OSD to Minister (Health), GNCT of Delhi and as per Residency Scheme, resident doctors are engaged for working in hospitals and not for other duties. Dr Aggarwal was also nominated for participation in a training programme at IIM Ahmedabad in contravention of the Residency Scheme on government expenses and was also nominated for a proposed visit to Beijing, China as a member of the official delegation. Hence, the charge sheet was filed against both the accused for the above-stated offences and only for Anup Mohta, a sanction for prosecution was obtained against him.  

Sh. Kapil Munda, Sr. PP for the CBI submitted that Dr Anup Mohta acted in total disregard of the rules and practices. He highlighted that the appointment was made without following the Memorandum of Association of CNBC and Residential Scheme regarding the appointment of Resident Doctors. He contended that Dr Anup Mohta committed an act of corruption and thus an offence of the PC Act and Dr Nikunj Aggarwal is also liable to be charged as he was the beneficiary of the illegal acts. He highlighted that the general public was not informed before the appointment through advertisement and the post of Sr. Resident (Ortho) was not vacant at that time. According to “Mauvin Godhino v. the State of Goa”, (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 63 he submitted that it is a fit case for framing of charges and there is a prima facie case of commission of offences by the accused persons.  

Sr. Counsel for Nikunj Aggarwal, Rebecca M. John contended that the appointment of Dr Aggarwal was in consonance with the relevant rules and procedure by Dr Mohta. As the worst-case against Dr Aggarwal, it would amount to an irregular appointment and not illegal at all. She referred to a statement of Dr Sapna Bathla (PW-5) and suggested that the appointment was made under emergent circumstances by Dr Mohta which is fully justified. Referring to “R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha & Others”, (2004) 2 SCC 9 Sr. Counsel, Rebecca M. John submitted that the Residency scheme is not a law and its violation thereof is not an offence. So, only disciplinary action might have been initiated but prosecution for a criminal offence is unwarranted. It was also pointed out that there was no material to say that there is a conspiracy between the accused persons. Sr. Counsel, Rebecca M. John as an additional plea argued that S. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 stand repealed as the amendment made in 2018 so it should lead to the closure of the present prosecution.  

P.K. Dubey, Ld. Counsel for Dr Anup Mohta argued that the sanction was not granted referring to “CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal”. He concluded by saying that there was no violation and if there was any it was the violation of executive instructions which does not give rise to any prosecution. Hence, both the Counsels prayed for the discharge of the accused persons.  

The Delhi Court said “Here, in the present case, it has been shown that one Dr Kavish Singh had suddenly resigned as he had got another posting at Safdarjung Hospital. Not only he had resigned, but through a subsequent letter, he had also preponed his date of leaving the job. Taking into account the nature of the job of a Sr. Resident which is patient care, the immediate appointment of Dr Nikunj Aggarwal cannot be termed against the public interest”. “As far as the aspect of requisition of services of Dr Nikunj Aggarwal as OSD to the Health Minister is concerned, there is no material which suggests that it was illegal to do so”. “The allegations qua attending training at IIM, Ahmedabad are also not worth consideration as a nomination for the participation of Dr Nikunj Aggarwal was not done at the behest of Dr Anup Mohta, or for that matter at behest of Dr Nikunj Aggarwal. A perusal of notings would rather show that Dr Mohta had raised objection to reimbursement of the expenses for the said training programme to Dr Nikunj Aggarwal. This shows that Dr Mohta was not in any conspiracy with Dr Aggarwal qua this allegation. Moreover, the expenses so reimbursed to Dr Aggarwal were fully recovered from him later on”. “Similarly, the allegations qua nomination for Beijing visit are also without any substance” and the visit never happened.  

Hence, Dr Anup Mohta and Dr Nikunj Aggarwal both are discharged from the case and their bail bonds are also cancelled and the sureties also discharged.