P&H High Court Quashes FIR Against Selected Candidates In Haryana Civil Services Accused Of Being Involved In Favouritism, Corruption Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR and summoning orders under the Prevention of Corruption Act against selected candidates in Haryana Civil Services (HCS) 2004, accused of being involved in corruption case against the Chairman and Members of the HPSC in selections from the year 2001 to 2004.

The candidates in the present case was not given the appointment letters statedly because the FIR  under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, was lodged in 2005 by Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar to look into the allegations of favoritism and corruption by the Chairman and Members of the HPSC in various selections done from the year 2001 to 2004.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted that, "...after the registration of the FIR, the matter was examined twice by the highest officers of the State Vigilance Bureau, who had prepared detailed reports twice...respectively, whereby, a clean chit was given to the petitioners before this Court and they were declared as non-tainted candidates, after examining their answer sheets."

The Court added that when the State Government had earlier decided and declared the petitioners as non-tainted candidates, the respondent-State cannot be allowed to take a somersault and order the prosecution of the petitioners, which is contrary to the two reports submitted by the senior most officers of the State Vigilance Bureau.

The judge further found that the charge, which is now sought to be established against the present petitioners was subject matter of earlier investigation reports and the petitioners were clearly exonerated.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that despite specific orders and the stand taken by the State in 2010 that they would conclude the enquiry within 06 months, the State Government did not complete the enquiry. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners had filed contempt plea and the Court directed the respondent to conclude the investigation within a period of 03 months vide order dated 01.06.2011 so that necessary orders in respect of the appointment of the petitioners may be passed, in accordance with law.

In the meantime, one of the successful candidates moved an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) seeking the status of the enquiry.

In response to RTI the report stated that certain irregularities regarding cutting and using of different inks or certain candidates had been given marks in certain manner in cases of 64 candidates were found. However, 38 candidates, which included the petitioners were given a clean chit by the Director of State Vigilance Bureau.

After examining the submissions and material available on record the Court found that after an order of division bench of the High Court in 2016 petitioners were offered selection.

The Court noted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby, the petitioners were declared as innocent and were offered appointment by the State Government, had attained finality and admittedly, the said decision of this Court has not been set-aside so far.

"Thus, when the reports of the Independent Committee of the State Vigilance Bureau...have been accepted by this Court and the selection has already been offered in LPA 1168 of 2015 titled as “Apurv and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, any prosecution based on the report of a DSP level officer cannot be allowed to continue and the same is gross misuse of the process of law," the Court concluded.

Justice Shekhawat also highlighted that, "after a period of about 18 years, the final report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C...has been presented before the Court, which violates the constitutional security of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the initiation of the proceedings in pursuance of the final report...are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court."

Reliance was also placed on Ashoo Surenderanath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another, (2020) wherein the Apex Court held that, in case of exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits and where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue.

In light of the above, the Court said the continuation of proceedings arising out of the FIR and summoning order passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Hisar would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and are liable to be quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate and Ms. Niharika Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

 Title: Jaiveer Yadav and others v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order