The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to consider the representations of a whistleblower customs officer seeking protection under the law.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale issued the directive while hearing a petition filed by Priyesh Bheda, an officer currently posted with the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Bheda alleged that he was being targeted with major penalty proceedings for exposing corruption within the Central Excise Department through a whistleblower complaint filed under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Rules, 2004.
Bheda’s complaint, lodged on July 12, 2011, led to disciplinary action against several officers, including one officer who opted for voluntary retirement. However, in 2018, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, alleging misconduct for filing the complaint. Bheda claimed this action was in violation of Section 11 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, which provides statutory safeguards to whistleblowers.
The officer approached the High Court seeking quashing of the charge memorandum issued against him and protection from adverse action during the proceedings. He also urged the court to direct authorities to consider his pending applications for whistleblower protection.
At the outset, Bheda did not press for quashing the charge memorandum and related prayers, as those matters were pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). “Thus, we make it clear that we have not heard the aforesaid prayer clauses on merits and as such, all contentions of all parties are kept open,” the bench stated.
Regarding his requests for protection, the court recorded the statement of CVC’s counsel that Bheda’s applications dated December 21, 2021, and January 31, 2022, would be considered on merit within four weeks. Similarly, CBIC’s CVO assured the court that Bheda’s April 7, 2022, representation would also be reviewed within the same timeframe.
The court accepted these assurances and directed compliance with the timelines.
