Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
AFTAB ALAM
Nirmal Singh Kahlon with J.P. Singla & Others
Versus
State of Punjab & Others
Civil Appeal No. 6198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6200-6201 of 2008
Decided On: 22-10-2008
B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 154, 2(h):- The term “investigation” referred to under Section 2(h) includes a preliminary enquiry conducted. (Para 26)
C) Constitution of India Article 21:- Fair investigation as well as a fair trial are part of the fundamental right of an accused. (Para 21)
D) Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 13 (1) (d) and 13(2) :- The term “scam” distinguished from a crime by an individual so as to mean “ getting money or property by false promises and pretension from a victim including swindling or fraud”. (Para 50)
E) Constitution of India, Article 226:- Stressing the power of the High Court to initiate a public interest litigation suo motu, the difference between public interest litigation and private interest litigation is distinguished. (Para 32)
F) Delhi Police Establishment Act, Section 6, Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, Section 176:- While referring the question whether the High Court can direct the CBI to conduct an enquiry into an offence in the State without its consent to a larger Bench as in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for protection of Democratic Right, W.B. and others (2006 SCC 12, Pg. No;534) , it was held to have been conceded by law. (Para 36)
Judgment:-
S.B. Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
These two appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Nirmal Singh Kahlon, Appellant in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24777-24778 of 2005 was the Rural Development and Panchayats Minister in the Government of Punjab while the three appellants in appeals arising out of SLP (C)Nos. 25226-25227 of 2005 were working as Deputy Directors in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Government of Punjab at the relevant time.
3. The State of Punjab had enacted the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
4. An advertisement for recruitment of 190 Panchayat Secretaries was issued in the year 1992 for which written test was held in the year 1994; however, the posts could not be filled. In the meantime 545 Panchayat Secretaries were appointed on ad hoc basis by the State.
5. One of the applicants, who applied for the post in response to the advertisement of 190 posts, challenged the said ad hoc appointments by way of a writ petition which was marked as C.W.P. No.9835 of 1996, titled Palvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Court on 20th September, 1996 by directing inter alia the completion of the selection process as well as for available posts with the department. Selection against 190 posts of Panchayat Secretaries, for which written test had already been held was to be finalized on or before 20th November, 1996.
6. Twomore advertisements were issued; first on 17/18th September, 1996 for filling up 700 posts and second on 14th October, 1996 for filling up 800 posts of Panchayat Secretaries respectively. Another advertisement was issued on 19th September, 1998 inviting applications from the female candidates also for the post of Panchayat Secretaries.
In response to the abovementioned advertisements over 1.5 lacs applications were received, the processing job whereof was handed over to a Delhi based computer firm. Result of the written test was declared on or about 14th October, 2000 in which 3286 candidates were declared successful. They were called for interview.
However, no further action appears to have been taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. Another writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was marked as CWP No.11912 of 2000, titled Harmesh Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others. By an order dated 30th August, 2001, selection for the post of Panchayat Secretaries was directed to be completed within one month. The said order was not interfered with by this Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State which was marked Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15843 of 2001 by an order dated 24th September, 2001. Interviews of the eligible candidates were held thereafter and 908 candidates were selected.
7. In or about March, 2002 a change in the State Government took place. The Congress Party came into power after election. The new Government made an attempt to reinstate the Panchayat Patwaris whose services had been terminated by the previous Government pursuant to the orders of the High Court.
8. Selection of the said 908 candidates was the subject matter of another writ petition which was marked as CWP No.5283 of 2003 entitled Veero Devi v. State of Punjab and others. In the said writ petition the Court formed a prima facie opinion that irregularities in the selection process had been committed. By an order dated 3rd April, 2002, the High Court issued the following directions:-
"The Bench Secretary is directed to give copy of this order to learned Deputy Advocate General who shall forward the same to the Advocate General, Punjab. The Advocate General, Punjab shall send the copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Punjab, who shall ensure that a thorough probe is conducted into the selections made by the Directorate of Department of Rural Development and Panchayats by an officer not below the
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181
Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and others
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Sup. (1) SCC 222
Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661
Rajiv Ranjan Singh `Lalan v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613
Rajesh v. Ramdeo (2001) 10 SCC 759
Sasi Thomas v. State (2006) 12 SCC 421
Indian Bank vs. Godhara Nagrik Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. & Anr. 2008 (7) SCALE 363
Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhavpurkar and others 2008 (12) SCALE 252
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights W.B. and others (2006) 12 SCC 534
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322
State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter (2008) 2 SCC 383
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi 1955 (1) SCR 1150
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others (2004) 13 SCC 292
Union of India and Others (2007) 1 SCC 110
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 2 SCC 409
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Others (2008) 3 SCC 542
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.