Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4479 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh Puar v. State Of Punjab

2006-12-08

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. This order of mine will dispose of Crl. Revision No. 1178 of 2003 filed by Joginder Singh Puar, Crl. Revision No. 1510 of 2003 filed by Sarwan Kumar Gupta and Crl. Revision No. 1179 of 2003 filed by Dr. Inderjit Singh Bansal and three others against the order dated 31.3.2003 passed by Special Judge, Patiala. 2. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegations that the petitioner abused his position as Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala during the years 1995 and 1996 in appointing Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department of Punjabi University, Patiala by giving undue advantage to him. The other allegation was that the petitioner, during the period from 6.10.1995 to January 1996, abused his position as Vice- Chancellor by corrupt and illegal means and obtained for himself pecuniary advantage i.e. 30% of Rs. 20 lacs. which was paid to his co-accused Sarwan Kumar Gupta in respect of setting up of Shamiana on the occasion of Science Congress held in January 1996 in the University Campus at Patiala and 50% of Rs. 10 lacs paid to said Sarwan Kumar Gupta towards over-payment in respect of setting up of Shamiana on the said function. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that Special Judge, Patiala vide earlier order dated 30.10.2001 directed framing of charges against the petitioner and his co-accused without considering the material placed on record. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 551 of 2002. Similar petitions were also filed by co-accused of the petitioner. All these petitions were accepted by this Court on 12.7.2002 and the case was remanded to the Special Judge, Patiala, directing him to summon the record on which petitioner and his co-accused wanted to place reliance. It was further observed that if the documents show the innocence of the petitioner and his co-accused, they should be discharged. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 31.3.2003, ordered the framing of charges against the petitioner and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Nagar Singh was a highly qualified person having M.A., M.Phil in Sociology. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 31.3.2003, ordered the framing of charges against the petitioner and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Nagar Singh was a highly qualified person having M.A., M.Phil in Sociology. He made an application (Annexure P.1) dated 5.12.1995 to the petitioner seeking appointment against the post of Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department of Punjabi University, Patiala. This application was marked by the petitioner on 6.12.1995 to the Head of the Lexicography Department. Said Nagar Singh appeared for interview before Head of the Lexicography Department, who vide endorsement dated 12.12.1995 recommended the appointment of Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months. Accordingly, the file was put up before the petitioner on 14.12.1995 who approved the appointment of Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months. However, on the same day, an office note was put on the file of Nagar Singh that he was not having requisite three years experience for the post and in fact there was no post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Lexicography Department. Establishment Branch then came up with a suggestion that the post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Sociology Department may be transferred and condition of three years of experience be relaxed. On 29.12.1995, the petitioner approved the shifting of the post and relaxation of the condition requiring three years experience. Finally on 5.1.1996 Nagar Singh was given appointment for six months on ad hoc basis after relaxing the condition of three years experience in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate. On 20.2.1996, item No. 27 on the agenda was taken up by the Syndicate for approval of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor vide which he had appointed Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant after giving relaxation of three years experience on ad hoc basis for six months. However, said item was withdrawn. There was another item No. 74 in the same agenda seeking approval of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor whereby qualifications for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department were changed. As per the same condition of experience was relaxed in case of higher and better qualified candidates. However, it was provided that candidates having experience would be preferred. As per the same condition of experience was relaxed in case of higher and better qualified candidates. However, it was provided that candidates having experience would be preferred. As mentioned above, item No. 27 on the agenda was withdrawn, meaning thereby that the approval by the Syndicate was not granted to the appointment of Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant. Consequently on 22.3.1996 Nagar Singh was relieved from the post. Then arose the need to seek approval of the Syndicate for payment of salary to Nagar Singh for the period from 5.1.1996 to 22.3.1996. The same was passed on 28.6.1996 by the Syndicate vide item No. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel contended that the appointment of Nagar Singh was done as per the prescribed procedure and there was no question of the petitioner abusing his position. 5. Learned counsel representing the State of Punjab opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that the appointment of Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure as he did not fulfill the essential conditions of having three years experience. The documents, placed before me by the petitioner, have been perused. On 5.12.1995, the day when Nagar Singh applied to the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Technical Assistant in the Department of Lexicography, he did not have the requisite three years experience to his credit. In spite of this he mentioned in his application that he fulfilled all the requisite conditions for the post. Said Nagar Singh was, thereafter interviewed by Head of the Lexicography Department, who recommended his appointment on ad hoc basis for six months. When the file was put up before the petitioner, he wasted no time in approving the recommendation and order of the appointment of Nagar Singh for a period of six months. He did not mention anywhere while approving the recommendation and ordering appointment of Nagar Singh that the matter be put up before the Syndicate for its approval. The petitioner did not even bother to find out if the petitioner had requisite three years experience to his credit. Further, in fact there was no post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Lexicography Department. The petitioner did not even bother to find out if the petitioner had requisite three years experience to his credit. Further, in fact there was no post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Lexicography Department. Faced with this difficulty, on being apprised by Superintendent of Establishment Branch that a post of Technical Assistant was lying vacant in Sociology Department, the petitioner shifted the said post to the Lexicography Department besides relaxing the condition of three years experience and thereafter appointed Nagar Singh to the said post. At no stage the Head of the Department of Sociology was asked to give his opinion regarding shifting of the post. As per the statement of Jasbir Singh, Senior Desk Assistant Establishment, Punjabi University Patiala recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was no provision in the University Calendar for shifting the post from one department to another. On 5.01.1995, Nagar Singh finally joined duty as Technical Assistant on ad hoc basis. The matter was thereafter put up before the Syndicate vide item No. 2 for approval of the appointment of Nagar Singh. As Nagar Singh did not possess the requisite experience, the item regarding approval of his appointment was withdrawn. Another item was brought before the Syndicate on 20.2.1996 seeking approval to the orders of the Vice-Chancellor laying down qualifications for the post of Technical Assistant. The petitioner, while doing so, omitted the requirement of three years experience. However, the Syndicate in its meeting held way back on 21.2.1984 had approved the qualifications requiring three years experience in the case of candidates having passed B.Sc. or five years experience in the case of others having done Diploma in three years while in the case of those doing Diploma/Certificate in two years, experience of seven years was required. In view of the above, item No. 74 was also withdrawn by the petitioner and the services of Nagar Singh were terminated. Later on, the petitioner passed an order for payment of salary to Nagar Singh for the period from 5.1.1996 to 22.3.1996. All this prima facie shows that the petitioner kept Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months by relaxing the conditions of three years experience on his own. The Syndicate did not approve the appointment of Nagar Singh. He was relieved on 22.3.1996. All this prima facie shows that the petitioner kept Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months by relaxing the conditions of three years experience on his own. The Syndicate did not approve the appointment of Nagar Singh. He was relieved on 22.3.1996. The petitioner abused his position as Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala, by giving undue advantage to Nagar Singh and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 6. Coming to the second charge regarding the setting up of Shamiana and the petitioner obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself by abusing his position, it has been submitted on his behalf that a committee was constituted consisting of Dr. S.S. Joshi, Dr. Baldev Kumar, Dr. J.L. Bhanot and Dr. I.J.S. Bansal for the purchase of different articles from Delhi and to contact the firms for the erection of Pandal for 83rd Session of Science Congress from January 3 to 8, 1996. The said committee accepted the rates quoted by M/s Guptaji Tent, Delhi. Accordingly, agreement (Annexure P.22) was executed by Guptaji Tents, Dr. I.J.S. Bansal, Local Secretary of the Committee and the Registrar of Punjabi University, Patiala. An audit objection (Annexure P.24) was raised that advance payment could not be made to Guptaji Tents. However, Assistant Registrar of the University requested for allowing the payment to be made in advance. Ultimately advance payment of Rs. 3,26,250/- was permitted. On 23.12.1995, Dr. I.J.S. Bansal, Local Secretary was intimated that extra items were required to be provided and that charges for extra items be included in the final bill. Another similar intimation (Annexure P.26) contained the details of the extra items required to be arranged by Guptaji Tents for the function. On 11.1.1996, Assistant Registrar of the University submitted to the petitioner for favour of sanction, total bills amounting to Rs. 31,24,894/- besides informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 13,26,250/- has already been paid to Guptaji Tents as advance money and so the balance of Rs. 17,98,634/- be paid to the firm by re-appropriating an amount of Rs. Five lacs from the budget head "unforeseen and miscellaneous expenses" to "erection of Pandal" so that the payment to the firm may be released. In the meantime discussion took place between the petitioner and the representative of Guptaji Tents as a result thereto Guptaji Tents agreed to charge Rs. Thirty lacs instead of Rs. Five lacs from the budget head "unforeseen and miscellaneous expenses" to "erection of Pandal" so that the payment to the firm may be released. In the meantime discussion took place between the petitioner and the representative of Guptaji Tents as a result thereto Guptaji Tents agreed to charge Rs. Thirty lacs instead of Rs. 31,24,894/-. It is then submitted that the prosecution recorded the statement of Harpal Singh Pannu under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 12.10.2000 wherein he alleged that the petitioner and Sarwan Kumar Gupta had a closed- door meeting at the residence of the Petitioner in August/September 1995 at 10/11 A.M. wherein it was settled that the petitioner would be paid 30% commission out of the amount of the payment to be paid to Sarwan Kumar Gupta regarding the work of tent. It was contended that CWP No. 6924 of 1996 was filed by Punjabi University Teachers Association (Singla group) through its Secretary against the State of Punjab and others, seeking investigation regarding embezzlement/misappropriation of crores of rupees in hosting the 83rd Science Congress by Punjabi University. Along with the said writ petition Annexure P.7 was attached which contained the list of the members of the General Body of Punjabi University Teachers Association, where the name and signatures of said Harpal Singh appeared. Another resolution was passed by Save Universities Association of India 12.12.1996 which was signed by aforementioned Harpal Singh Pannu amongst others resolving unanimously to file a writ petition in the High Court against the alleged embezzlement of funds by the Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University at the time of function of the 83rd Indian Science Congress. Accordingly, CWP No. 19194 of 1996 was filed. A letter (Annexure P.15) was also sent by Harpal Singh Pannu on 14.2.1997 to the then Chief Minister of Punjab stating therein that crores of rupees had been embezzled by the Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala in the four years. Earlier to that Harpal Singh Pannu also executed an affidavit (Annexure P.16) on 18.6.1997 to the effect that he had made a complaint to the Chief Minister, Punjab regarding embezzlement of crores of rupees in Punjabi University, Patiala and that it was the present petitioner and one A.S. Sandhu, who were main accused in the fraud. Earlier to that Harpal Singh Pannu also executed an affidavit (Annexure P.16) on 18.6.1997 to the effect that he had made a complaint to the Chief Minister, Punjab regarding embezzlement of crores of rupees in Punjabi University, Patiala and that it was the present petitioner and one A.S. Sandhu, who were main accused in the fraud. Another writ petition (CWP No. 6084 of 1999) which is attached as Annexure P.17 to the present petition, was filed by Harpal Singh Pannu and Ranjit Singh Batth in this Court in respect of multi-crore scam which took place during the 83rd Indian Science Congress hosted by Punjabi University Patiala. Reference to all these documents was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to highlight the fact that no such allegations were made in any of those documents as were now contained in the statement of Harpal Singh Pannu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2000, Accordingly, it was submitted that there was no evidence/material available on the file to show that the petitioner ever received any pecuniary advantage from Sarwan Gupta in respect of setting up of shamiana/pandal at the 83rd Session of Indian Science Congress. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that sufficient evidence has been collected by the prosecution in the shape of the statement of Harpal Singh Pannu regarding the petitioner having obtained pecuniary advantage. 7. Mere fact that Harpal Singh Pannu whose statement is being primarily relied by the prosecution in proof of the fact that the petitioner obtained pecuniary advantage from Sarwan Gupta in respect of the setting up of Shamiana/pandal was examined on 12.10.2000 and that none of the facts contained therein were ever disclosed by him while filing various writ petitions before this Court or sending letters/affidavits to the then Chief Minister of Punjab, is to conclude that prima facie there is no sufficient evidence/material available on the file in support of the said charge. The aforementioned writ petitions filed by or on behalf of Harpal Singh Pannu simply contained the gist of statement of Harpal Singh Pannu being later on made to the Investigating Agency on 12.10.2000 when his detailed statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It would be for the trial Court to appreciate independently as to whether Harpal Singh Pannu could not earlier give all the details of the discussion between the petitioner and Sarwan Gupta, which he over-heard when he visited the residence of the petitioner. The effect of Harpal Singh making statement after couple of years from the date when he claimed to have over- heard the discussion, would also be considered by the trial Court. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no ground to interfere in the order directing framing of charges against the petitioner. The present petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Crl Revision No. 1510 of 2003 has been filed by Sawan Kumar Gupta, who has been charged under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act read with Section 120B IPC. The statement of Harpal Singh Pannu is sufficient material available on the file apart from other material to connect the petitioner with the conspiracy, making him liable for the main offences with the aid of Section 120B IPC. Mere fact that there was no evidence of inflated rates or that no material has been collected that any payment was actually made by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor is not sufficient to absolve the petitioner of liability at this stage. Accordingly, Crl. Revision No. 1510 of 2003 is also dismissed. 9. Coming to the third revision i.e. Crl. Revision No. 1179 of 2003 filed by Inderjit Singh Bansal, Dr. Baldev Kumar, Dr. J.L. Bhanot and Dr. S.S. Joshi, it may be seen that no evidence or material has been collected by the prosecution to establish that they were party to the criminal conspiracy in respect of the taking of pecuniary advantage by Joginder Singh Puar Vice- Chancellor of the University. The Committee in question was duly constituted by Assistant Registrar and the petitioners had no role to play except to oversee the setting up of the shamiana/pandal as per the directions given to Guptaji Tents. The Committee in question was duly constituted by Assistant Registrar and the petitioners had no role to play except to oversee the setting up of the shamiana/pandal as per the directions given to Guptaji Tents. Even in the statement of Harpal Singh Pannu there is no mention that any of the petitioners was present at the time of the meeting, said to have taken place between the Vice-Chancellor and Sarwan Kumar Gupta. In view of the above, no case is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed and the order passed by Special Judge, Patiala on 31.3.2003 directing framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC is set aside. 10. In nutshell, Crl. Revision No. 1178 of 2003 and Crl. Revision No. 1510 of 2003 are dismissed, whereas Crl. Revision No. 1179 of 2003 is allowed. However, it is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court would be at liberty to record the evidence, and thereafter appreciate the same in accordance with law. The petitioners in Crl. Revision No. 1178 of 2003 and Crl. Revision No. 1510 of 2003 are permitted to take all the pleas available to them at the appropriate stage.