Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -1-
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
LPA-1474
1474-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on ::- 07.11.2024
Date of Pronouncement
Pronouncement: 19.11.2024
Jagtar Singh Sidhu ....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent
Appeal, 1894 is preferred against the judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Inn the writ petition the appellant challenged proceedings of
Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 11.11.2022 whereby 09 Block
Development and Panchayat Officers were promoted as District Development
Panchayat Officers (Group 'A') on the ground that they were junior to the
appellant and the case of appellant was kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of
FIR No.14, dated 25.06.2018, under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B
120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
registered against the appellant and others at Police Station Vigilance Bureau,
Bathinda. Further a direction was sought in the writ petition to the respondents to
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -2-
consider and promote the appellant to the post of District Development and
Panchayat Officer w.e.f
w.e.f the date, the persons junior to him have been promoted
and to grant all consequential benefits to the appellant including seniority, pay and
increments etc., along with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in th
thee impugned
judgment dated 04.07.2023,
04.07.2023 learned Single Judge has not fully appreciated the
facts of the case. He further contends that observations made by the learned Single
Judge are contrary to the settled proposition of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union
nion of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman 1991 (4) SCC 109. Therefore, he prays that
the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the writ petition filed
by the appellant was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
6. A perusal of the record shows that as per letter dated 20.06.2022
received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda Range,
the brief background is that a case of embezzlement of government money by
Mandeep Singh S/o Baldev Singh Village Bhani Bagha, Distr
District Mansa
nsa was
pending with the appellant
appellant since he was posted as District Development and
Panchayat Officer, Mansa. A deal of Rs.2,20,000/
2,20,000/- was settled between Mandeep
Singh, the complainant, Rakesh Kumar, Superintendent and the aappellant.
ppellant. When
the house of appel
ppellant was searched, an amount of Rs.
Rs.99,000/- was recovered from
his house. This action was part of the trap laid down by the Vig
Vigilance
ilance Bureau
Bathinda and the appellant
appellant was arrested on 25.06.2018, on br
bribery
ibery charges and FIR
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -3-
No. 14 U/s
/s 7, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and 120-B
B IPC was
registered, against him and other.
7. Further, pursuant to the FIR, he was placed under suspension by the
department on 18.07.2018
18.07.2018 w.e.f 25.06.2018. The aappellant
ppellant was reinstated on
21.12.2018. Thereafter, on 05.05.2023,
05.05.2023, a chargesheet under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was issued to him. Meanwhile,
prosecution sanction against
agains the appellant
ppellant was also given by the department to the
Vigilance Bureau on 15.03.2023, which was earlier denied.
8. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-
under:
"6. I have considered the submissions.
7. In Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman's case (supra), the
Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the aspects regarding
adopting of the 'sealed cover procedure' and had framed following
questions:
questions:-
(1) what is the date from which it can be said that
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an
employee?
(2) What is the course to be, adopted when the employee
is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits
punishment other than that of dismissal?
(3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or
partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date?'
On the first question,
question, the Apex Court has observed as under:
under:-
" The Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only
when a charge-memo
memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -4-
chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the
employee that it can be said that the departmental
tmental
proceedings/criminal
ings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the
employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to
only after the charge--memo/charge-sheet
sheet is issued. The
pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage
will not be sufficient
ent to enable the authorities to adopt the
sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the
Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant
appellant-authorities
authorities that when
there are serious allegations and it takes time tto
o collect
necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-
charge
memo/charge-sheet,
sheet, it would not be in the interest of the
purity of administration to reward the employee with a
promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The
acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to
the employees in many
many-cases.
cases. As has been the experience
so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately
long time and particularly when they are initiated at the
instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending
deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of
any charge-memo/chargesheet.
memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are
serious and the authorities are keen in investigating
them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect
the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is
further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities
have the power to suspend the employee under the
relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a
resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus
are not without
ut a ,remedy. It was then contended on
behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of
the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each
other. Those conclusions are as follows:
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -5-
"(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade,
crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot
be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a
disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
(2) ................................................
(3)........................................
(4) the sealed cover procedur
proceduree can be resorted only after
a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the
charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not
before."
8. The said judgment has been followed consistently by the
subsequent judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in State Bank
of Patiala v. O.P.Latka's case (supra) while following the judgment,
noticed the cut off date as on the date when the charge sheet was
issued or not to the concerned delinquent.
9. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on
25.06.2018
5.06.2018 and he remained in judicial custody after 03.08.2018. He
would thus, be deemed to be under suspension after the period during
which he remained in jail. In view of the observations of the Apex
Court, since the petitioner was under suspension for the period
adopting of 'sealed cover procedure' on account of the remaining
under suspension would have to be examined whether the same can be
adopted even though after he was released, he rejoined his duties and
continued to serve.
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -6-
10. In the opinion of this Court, the period spent in judicial
custody would be treated as period spent under suspension and
therefore, the factum of remaining in suspension though for a
particular period can be a sufficient ground to keep the case of an
employee under 'sealed cover' and merely because the charge sheet
was not filed in the criminal proceedings or that departmental inquiry
was also not issued on the relevant date would not be an impediment
to adopt the sealed cover. This Court further observes that a person
who has been found to be involved in a case of corruption / bribery
cannot be awarded promotion to a higher post.
11. So far as the question regarding refusal of sanction to
prosecute ordered vide order dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure P
P-4)
4) and
subsequent granting of sanction is concerned, the same is not a matter
to be examined in the present case. Question still have to be examined
independently in the competent proceedings before the criminal
Court. Leaving it open for the petitioner to contest the said aspect,
fact
act remains that he remained under suspension, it means suspended
during the period of arrest from 25.06.2018 to 03.08.2018 which was
sufficient to adopt 'sealed cover procedure'.
12. Accordingly, no case for grant of relief is made out.
13. Petition is dismissed."
9. A perusal of the above shows that the learned Single Judge has
categorically taken into consideration each and every argument of learned counsel
for the appellant. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted
ccepted by this Court since the learned Single Judge has categorically
LPA-1474-2023
2023 (O&M) -7-
dealt with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman (supra),
(supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the
appellant. The judgment passed by the learned Single Bench is well reasoned. It
has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that a person who has been
found to be involved in a case of corruption/bribery cannot be awarded promotion
to a higher post.
10. A perusal of the record further shows that the prosecution sanction
against the appellant was also given by department to the Vigilance Bureau on
15.03.2023, which was earlier denied.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment
dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP
CWP-3991-2023,
2023, titled as
'Jagtar Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab and another'. The same is upheld and the
present appeal is dismissed.
12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR
SURESHWAR THAKUR)
THAKUR (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
SHARMA
JUDGE JUDGE
November 19, 2024
tripti
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable :YYes
