SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1420

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 
Sheel Nagu, C.J. and Anil Kshetarpal, JJ.
Satinder Singh And Others – Appellant 
Versus
The State Of Punjab And Others – Respondent
CWP-PIL-3-2020(O&M), CWP-5165-2024(O&M), CWP-5210-2024(O&M), CWP-5211-2024(O&M) and CWP-5213-2024(O&M)
Decided on : 28-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate, Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate
Mr. Chantey Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harneet Singh Oberoi, Advocate Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. A.G., Punjab and Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab

The court affirmed the necessity of obtaining prior approval for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring timely and proper inquiries without undue influence.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Approval to investigate allegations against public servants for misuse of position and financial irregularities - The petitioners sought a mandamus to direct an FIR based on a vigilance inquiry; the court emphasized the requirement of approval under Section 17A for police investigations into public servants and addressed procedural issues related to the approval process. (Paras 1.1, 3.1, 4.1)

(B) The necessity of conducting timely investigations in public interest and ensuring that protective legal provisions do not hinder legitimate inquiries against public servants alleged to have engaged in misconduct. (Paras 3.5, 4.2)

(C) The court analyzed the distinction between the approval to investigate under Section 17A and the sanction for prosecution under Section 19, emphasizing the different standards applied at each stage of inquiry. (Paras 3.3, 3.4)

Facts of the case:
The petition involved allegations of misuse of official position by officials in the allotment of industrial plots causing substantial financial loss to the state. The High Court was petitioned to ensure an investigation was initiated against implicated parties, paralleling previous inquiries that indicated irregularities.

Findings of Court:
The Vigilance Bureau was to ensure that investigation was conducted promptly, recognizing the prolonged delay since the initial inquiry began in 2018.

Issues: Whether the approval process to investigate was politicized and if the order for investigation was valid under existing laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the order granting approval for investigation satisfied the legal requirements under Section 17A and was not merely reactive to judicial pressure but contained a substantive review of procedural fairness.

Result: The PIL was disposed of favorably urging prompt investigations.

Table of Content
1. pil filed for investigation approval (Para 1)
2. arguments about investigation and approval processes (Para 2)
3. discussion on section 17a requirements (Para 3)
4. conclusion regarding the necessity of timely investigations (Para 4)

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. FACTUAL MATRIX

1.1 With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, this order shall dispose of CWP-PIL No.3 of 2020, CWP Nos.5165, 5210, 5211 and 5213 of 2024.

1.2. PIL has been filed by Sh. Satinder Singh for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the legal notice sent on 01.11.2019, with a further direction to register an FIR against guilty persons on the basis of vigilance inquiry report no.03 of 04.04.2018 and conclude the investigation in a time bound manner. Four other writ petitions have been filed to seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Managing Director's order dated 20.02.2024, approving investigation against the petitioners in the remaining four writ petitions in terms of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act').

1.3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that pursuant to 'Source Report' marked by Assistant Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau (VB), for conducting the inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted by the Inspector on 30.01.2019. Some information and material was found to indicate that the officers/officials of Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'PSIEC') misused their position to get the industrial plots allotted to their close relatives/friends/unknowns while causing financial loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the Govemment/PSIEC. As per investigation, Sh. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, who was posted as General Manager (Personnel) got a plot allotted to his wife, son of his aunt's mother; Smt. Parminder Kaur wife of Sh. Shamsher Singh, family member, Sh. Kewal Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, relative and friend, Sh. Sukhraj Singh son of Sukhchain Singh, Sh. Jaswinder Singh's relative, Sh. Damanpreet Singh, Sh. Avtar Singh, Sh. Sukhpal Singh Sandhu, Sh. Ramanpreet Singh, Sh. Jasmeet Singh, Sh. Gurmail Singh, Sh. Gagandeep Kaur etc. Sh. SP.Singh, who was posted as Chief General Manager(Estate), PSIEC, misused his position by wrongly changing industrial plots allotment and he was assisted by Sh. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa in allotment of these plots. The files of Plot No.657, Industrial Focal Point, Phase-IX, Mohali, and Plot No.426, Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar, have been misplaced in order to disrupt the investigation as these plots belong to Sh. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa. Sh. Savtej Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, prepared forged documents of his relative Sh. Gurtej Singh and allotted him a plot. The payment of this plot was made from the account of his own son Sh. Manroop Singh and father. The involvement of Sh. S.P.Singh, Chief General Manager, was also established. The Estate officer Sh. Amarjit Singh Kahlon, Sh. Vijay Gupta, Senior Assistant. Sh. Dashan Singh, Consultant, were also found involved. These official have misused their position to allot plot No.E-261, C-210, C-211, E-260A, E-248, Phase-XIII, Plot No.659, Phase-IX, F-209, Phase-XIII B, Industrial Area, Mohali, Plot No.426, Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar, Plot No.426, Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar, Plot No.294, Industrial focal Point, Amritsar. Though, there is no provision for charging 0% interest on delayed payment, but waiver of payment of interest has been given to various allottees causing financial loss of Rs.8,72,71, 669/- in various plots.

1.4. On 31.01.2019, VB requested MD-cum-Secretary to grant approval to investigate under Section 17A of the PC Act. The Chief General Manager, on 01.03.2019, recommended grant of approval. Ultimately, the file appears to have been put up before the Chief Minister, Punjab, who ordered constitution of three member committee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top