SARABJIT SINGH VERKA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/24248/2012

AI Insights

The case involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against respondent No.4, a former Indian Administrative Service officer, alleging corruption and misuse of public office. The petitioner argued that respondent No.4 had a controversial past, including an FIR in 2004 related to corruption, and recent allegations linked him to bribery cases involving a Sub Inspector. The court examined whether the PIL could be used to investigate these allegations against a single officer. It was noted that previous investigations did not find substantial evidence against respondent No.4, and the closure report was accepted. The court decided that further investigation into the companies linked to respondent No.4 should be conducted by the Vigilance Bureau if irregularities are suspected.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724013 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PUNEETA SETHI; P S BAJWA; SANDEEP SINGH; R S CHEEMA; K S NALWA; P S AHLUWALIA; URVASHI DUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: R S BAINS
• Keywords: Benami Properties; Closure report; Corruption; FIR; Investigation; PIL; Premature retirement

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24248 of 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 31.08.2013 Sarabjit Singh …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Puneeta Sethi, Advocate for UOI Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr.R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr.K.S. Nalwa and P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocates for respondent no.4 Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for Income Tax Department .. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) The petition styled as a PIL is really directed only against one ex-officer from the Indian Administrative Service, respondent No.4, alleging that he had a controversial past and an FIR was registered against him in the year 2004 relating to his corruption as a public servant. It has been further stated that in a recent FIR though the allegation was against a Sub Inspector for demanding bribe, the accused made certain counter-allegations against respondent No.4. Voluminous pleadings have been filed by the parties, but the short question that would arise for consideration is as to what extent the Chand Parkash 2013.09.02 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24248-2012 - 2 - jurisdiction of the PIL can be used to investigate a single officer against whom there are alleged to be corruption charges. It is found that qua the 2004__FIR, the matter was investigated. Allegedly, no material was found showing disproportionate wealth. Report was submitted and the matter was directed to be re- investigated and, finally, post such re-investigation, the closure report has been accepted. It is, thus, certainly cannot be within the jurisdiction of this Court to go into those aspects. The only aspect which apparently weighed with the Court while having noticed even the aforesaid facts so as to issue notice, was that there were certain details given in Annexure P-9 of three companies, which are alleged to be fronts of respondent No.4. This is apparent from order dated 23.1.2013. Respondent No.4 is alleged to have formed a Company known as ICRMS with the objective of siphoning off funds through three Companies mentioned in Annexure P-9. We are informed that so far as ICRMS is concerned, there was investigation by the Income Tax Department. A peculiar fact which emerges is that respondent No.4 actually is stated to have sought pre-mature retirement in the year 2001, did not occupy any public office for almost 10 years and his resignation was accepted after a decade on 13.3.2011. The alleged reason for this is stated to be the fact that respondent No.4 was under investigation qua the 2004 FIR. Another aspect we may note is that the affidavit filed by the Vigilance Bureau of State is that various properties owned by respondent No.4 were taken into account while filing the closure report, but not the Chand Parkash 2013.09.02 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24248-2012 - 3 - Companies mentioned in Annexure P-9 and certain allegations qua immovable properties held benami, which were in turn owned by the Company. In view of the aforesaid facts and position, we are of the view that no further directions can be passed other than to state that if some irregularity is found in the holdings of the Companies mentioned in Annexure P-9 or any link of the respondent No.4 to those Companies for siphoning off funds, as alleged by the petitioner and denied by respondent No.4, it would for the Vigilance Bureau to look into the matter. Needless to say that if any irregularity is found, action would be taken in accordance with law. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. ( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE 31.08.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) parkash* JUDGE Chand Parkash 2013.09.02 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "