to make further investigation by removing all those names in the report from their respective offices so as to ensure that further inquiry was number influenced by any of those officers or to order a CBI probe into the entire scandal involving the appointment of Panchayat Secretaries.
3 lacs were demanded from her by sending Manjet Singh Steno, office of R.D.P. to her residence.
It had also recorded the statements of a large number of persons.
By reason of the said order, the State Government was given two options, viz.
Appellant Nos.
One of the grounds on which the said stand was taken was lack of man power as also infra structure.
A charge sheet was filed against Nirmal Singh Kahlon and J.P. Singla appellant No.
They were called for interview.
Two more 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.
Responsibility has number only been fixed upon the appellant but also upon Shri Mandeep Singh, Shri C.L. Premmy, Shri J.S. Kesar, Shri Joginder Singh as also the then Additional Deputy Commissioners of Bhatinda, Ropar and Muktsar.
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 companypletion of the selection process as well as for available posts with the department.
As allegations had been made against the officer of a local police station in regard to the mode and manner in which investigation was carried out, a further investigation was directed.
By an order dated 30th August, 2001, selection for the post of Panchayat Secretaries was directed to be companypleted within one month.
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.
Whereas the first FIR dated 14.06.2002, thus, companytained the misdeeds of individuals, the second one depicts a crime companymitted in companyrse of selection process of Panchayat Secretaries involving a large number of officers.
In response to the abovementioned advertisements over 1.5 lacs applications were received, the processing job whereof was handed over to a Delhi based companyputer firm.
However, numberfurther action appears to have been taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof.
Interviews of the eligible candidates were held thereafter and 908 candidates were selected.
The desirability of issuing other directions would be companysidered by the Court after examining the report.
See Indian Bank vs. Godhara Nagrik Co op.
An affidavit to that effect was to be filed on or before 13th November, 2002 and the matter was adjourned to 15th November, 2002.
10 Pursuant thereto a first information report was lodged by the Vigilance Department on 14th June, 2002 against several persons including appellant, Nirmal Singh Kahlon, for alleged companymission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 1 d e and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the material portion whereof reads as under It has companye to knowledge that Sh.
The Investigating Officer appointed by the Central Bureau of Investigation being number superior in the rank to the police officers of the State Government who had investigated and submitted the report on 19th September, 2002, Section 36 of the Code whereupon reliance has been placed by the State is inapplicable inasmuch the expression superior police officer would mean an officer superior in the same hierarchy i.e. in the State Police and number an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Credit Society Ltd. Anr.
The Notification issued by the State permitting investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the offence pursuant to the order of the High Court must be held to be illegal as the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India companyld number have issued such a direction.
The process began by calling for a report from a responsible officer of the State.
After companyducting the probe, the report be produced before the Court within a period of 8 weeks.
In view of the aforementioned report the High Court, by an order dated 31st October, 2002, directed the Additional Advocate General to obtain instructions as to what action the Government has been companytemplating on the enquiry report.
It was lodged after holding a detailed preliminary inquiry.
The writ petition was listed before the High Court on 10th February, 2003 on which date it numbericed the decision of the State Government to handover the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
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.
The Congress Party came into power after election.
Despite the same numbernotification was issued by the State of Punjab handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
This Court on 12th December, 2005 while issuing numberice passed the following interim order The C.B.I. may companytinue with the investigation, but the final report shall number be filed till the next date of hearing Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior companynsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit As per the records and in particular the affidavit of Chief Secretary of the State the High Court was number made aware of the fact that the charge sheet had already been submitted on 19th September, 2002 before a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction and companynizance in the matter had been taken and thus the High Court acted illegally and without any jurisdiction in directing fresh investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
15843 of 2001 by an order dated 24th September, 2001.
In the meantime 545 Panchayat Secretaries were appointed on ad hoc basis by the State.
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.
This has also companye to knowledge that Kahlon has got leased 2 acres of Shamlat land at village Phabhat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Patiala for 7 years in the name of his close relative Burwinder Singh s o. Ajnala by mis using his position, whereas Shamlat land cannot be leased out for such a long period.
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.
Result of the written test was declared on or about 14th October, 2000 in which 3286 candidates were declared successful.
RE.D.P.M. has companymitted crime under Section 420, 467, 468, 120 B , 13 1 d e read with 13 2 .
The second FIR dated 26.06.2003 enumerates as many as fifteen categories of irregularities companymitted by various persons involved in the said selection process.
Deputy Director of Rural Development and Panchayats.
The State of Punjab had enacted the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
25226 25227 of 2005 were working as Deputy Directors in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Government of Punjab at the relevant time.
N.S. Kahlon Ex.
In this way for his favourites who were number fulfilling the requirement like less age, less qualification and manipulating the marks in the answer sheet, recruitment were made to P. Sect and deserving candidates were side lined.
The Advocate General, Punjab shall send the companyy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Punjab, who shall ensure that a thorough probe is companyducted into the selections made by the Directorate of Department of Rural Development and Panchayats by an officer number below the rank of Secretary to the Government.
In terms of the said order an enquiry was made by one Shri P. Ram, the then Financial Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Department.
2 and 3 in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C 25226 25227 of 2005 were shown as the witnesses in the said report.
The Directors of the firm who are also accused persons in this case had approached the Rajasthan High Court for the quashing of the FIR and prosecution against them.
It has also companye to knowledge that Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate District Fatehgrah Sahib who was fulfilling the basic qualifications in handicap quota for the Mukh Sewak was also sidelined.
Minister Rural Department and Panchayat had during his tenure made recruitments to the various posts of Tax Collector, Patwaris, Peons, Clerks etc.
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 companyld number be filled.
What types of irregularities have been companymitted were number stated.
The High Court in its order dated 31.10.2002, as numbericed heretobefore, gave two options to the State.
It may also order a CBI probe into the entire scandal involving appointment of Panchyat Secretaries.
The cases against them were that they along with some others entered into criminal companyspiracies to obtain for themselves or for others iron and steel materials in the name of certain bogus firms and that they actually obtained quota certificates, on the strength of which some of the members of the companyspiracy took delivery of quantities of iron and steel from the stock holders of those articles.
By doing this Ex.
By an order dated 3rd April, 2002, the High Court issued the following directions The Bench Secretary is directed to give companyy of this order to learned Deputy Advocate General who shall forward the same to the Advocate General, Punjab.
R.D.P.M. has earned crores of rupees by mis using his position through recruitments, transfers, appointments and promotions and has accumulated companyntless assets and cash.
25226 25227 of 2005 , Ex.
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.
In this way, Kahlon has accepted heavy amounts as bribes for transfers, appointments and promotions and he has accumulated moveable and immovable assets in excess of the known resources.
Therein, the FIRs were lodged in April and June, 1949 but permission for investigation as against the public servants by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was given in March and April, 1951.
Proceedings sheet of the High Court dated 25th April, 2003 reads as under From the records, it appears that for very good reasons, the Government of Punjab decided to hand over the investigation of scandal involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries, who are writ petitioners, to Central Bureau of Investigation and also to take action against the officers named in the inquiry report, that the Central Bureau of Investigation stands impleaded as Respondent No.5 in Civil Writ Petition No.5283 of 2002 and that today an application has been filed for placing on record DO No.18/79 02 4/RDE 4/560 dated 04/03/2003 and DO No.
The State took some adjournments.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
for his benefit by illegal means by taking heavy amounts of money as bribes.
Nirmal Singh Kahlon, Appellant in appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
Another advertisement was issued on 19th September, 1998 inviting applications from the female candidates also for the post of Panchayat Secretaries.
Similarly, to fulfil the backlog in handicap category recruitments of Gram Sewaks were made and the candidates, who were deserving were number recruited.
The said order was number interfered with by this Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the State which was marked Special Leave Petition Civil No.
I C/2003 CHG NZ dated 02/04/2003 of the Director Central Bureau of Investigation, Government of India, New Delhi, as Annexure R 1 and Annexure R 2 on behalf of Respondent No.1 and 2, stating, inter alia, that Central Bureau of Investigation has companymunicated that it would number be able to take up the investigation of the above said scandal and it may get probed through the State Vigilance after the companyrt had adjourned the further hearing of the case awaiting the submission of the report of Central Bureau of Investigation.
In the said writ petition the Court formed a prima facie opinion that irregularities in the selection process had been companymitted.
In this way Ex.
CBI companylected a large number of materials.
A number of criminal proceedings were pending against them.
When she was number able to give money in bribe, then she was number recruited to the post.
By misusing his powers, he had made wrong appointments for his benefit and the deserving candidates were overlooked.
It appears somewhat strange that despite the same a statement was made before the Court on behalf of the State of Punjab on 1st November, 2002 that the investigation was proposed to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Whereas investigations in respect of Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were required to be made by a police officer number below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police without the order of a Magistrate of the First Class, investigations under other provisions were number.
On 1st November, 2002 the State Government made a statement that a decision had been taken to handover the investigation in regard to the scandal involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries to the Central Bureau of Investigation and also to take action against the officers named in the enquiry report.
This Court therein was companycerned with two FIRs both lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The number of accused who were involved as per preliminary report of the CBI were as many as fourteen.
In or about March, 2002 a change in the State Government took place.
On that date a prayer was made for some more time to file a companyprehensive affidavit.
The nature of litigation, therefore, was changed from private interest litigation to public interest litigation.
In the second FIR dated 26.06.2003, the persons involved were number only the then Minister but also the then Director, the then Division Deputy Director, the then Deputy Directors, the then Additional Deputy Commissioners, the then Block Development Officers, etc.
On or about 16th November, 2002 Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development issued a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, opining that the case should be investigated by the Crime Branch of the State Police.
1 in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
Selection of the candidates, however, was cancelled by State Government by its order dated 10th December, 2002.
The first FIR pointed out offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 1 d e and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act but numberallegation of companyspiracy was made.
