Jagtar Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Another

IN T

Jagtar Singh Sid State of Punjab

CORAM : HON HO

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The Appeal, 1894 is learned Single J

2.

In Departmental P Development a Panchayat Offi appellant and th FIR No.14, da Corruption Act, registered again Bathinda. Furth

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

LPA-147

Reserved Date of P

dhu

VERSUS and Another

N'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURES N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for th r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun -.-

HARMA, J.

e present Letters Patent Appeal s preferred against the judgmen Judge of this Court. the writ petition the appel Promotion Committee, dated and Panchayat Officers were p cers (Group 'A') on the grou he case of appellant was kept in ated 25.06.2018, under Section , 1988 and under Section 120-B nst the appellant and others at her a direction was sought in the

JAB AND HARYANA ARH 74-2023 (O&M) d on :- 07.11.2024 Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 ....Appellant ....Respondents SHWAR THAKUR EEPTI SHARMA he appellant. njab under Clause 10 of Letters Pat nt dated 04.07.2023 passed by llant challenged proceedings

11.11.2022 whereby 09 Blo promoted as District Developm und that they were junior to a sealed cover due to pendency ns 7, 13(2) of the Prevention B of the Indian Penal Code, 18 Police Station Vigilance Bure e writ petition to the respondents

tent of ock ment y of of 860, eau,

consider and p Panchayat Offic and to grant all increments etc.,

3.

Lea judgment dated facts of the case Judge are contra Union of India the present appe be set aside.

4.

Per by the appellant

5.

We record of this ca

6.

A p received from S the brief backg Mandeep Singh pending with th Panchayat Offic Singh, the comp the house of app his house. This Bathinda and th

promote the appellant to the p cer w.e.f the date, the persons j consequential benefits to the app along with interest @ 18% per a arned counsel for the appellan d 04.07.2023, learned Single Ju e. He further contends that obser ary to the settled proposition of Vs. K.V.Jankiraman 1991 (4) eal be allowed and the judgment r contra, learned State counsel c t was rightly dismissed by the lea e have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the record shows th Senior Superintendent of Police, ground is that a case of embezz h S/o Baldev Singh Village B he appellant since he was pos cer, Mansa. A deal of Rs.2,20,0 plainant, Rakesh Kumar, Super pellant was searched, an amount action was part of the trap la e appellant was arrested on 25.0

post of District Development a junior to him have been promo pellant including seniority, pay a annum. nt contends that in the impugn udge has not fully appreciated rvations made by the learned Sin f law by Hon'ble Supreme Cour SCC 109. Therefore, he prays t passed by the learned Single Jud contends that the writ petition fi arned Single Judge. r the parties and perused the wh hat as per letter dated 20.06.20 Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda Ran zlement of government money Bhani Bagha, District Mansa w sted as District Development a 000/- was settled between Mand rintendent and the appellant. Wh of Rs.99,000/- was recovered fr aid down by the Vigilance Bur

6.2018, on bribery charges and F

and oted and ned ngle rt in that dge iled hole nge, by and deep hen rom reau

No. 14 U/s 7, registered, again

7.

Fur department on

21.12.2018. The Services (Punis prosecution sanc Vigilance Burea

8.

The learned Single J "6.

¶7Sup ado que

On

13(2) Prevention of Corruptio nst him and other. rther, pursuant to the FIR, he w

18.07.2018 w.e.f 25.06.2018. ereafter, on 05.05.2023, a charge hment and Appeal) Rules, 197 ction against the appellant was a au on 15.03.2023, which was ear e relevant portion of the judgme Judge is reproduced as under:-

I have considered the s

In Union of India v. K preme Court had an occasion opting of the 'sealed cover pro estions:-

(1) what is the date disciplinary/criminal p employee?

(2) What is the course is held guilty in suc punishment other than

(3) To what benefits a partially exonerated is the first question, the Apex Cou

" The Full Bench of th when a charge-memo

on Act 1988 and 120-B IPC w was placed under suspension by The appellant was reinstated esheet under Rule 8 of Punjab C 70 was issued to him. Meanwh also given by the department to rlier denied. ent dated 04.07.2023 passed by submissions. K.V.Jankiraman's case (supra), to examine the aspects regard cedure' and had framed follow from which it can be said t proceedings are pending against e to be, adopted when the employ h proceedings if the guilt me that of dismissal? an employee who is completely s entitled to and from which date urt has observed as under:- he Tribunal has held that it is o in a disciplinary proceedings o

on Civil hile, ding wing that t an oyee erits y or e?' only

chargesheet in a crim employee that it can proceedings/criminal p employee. The sealed c only after the charge-pendency of prelimina will not be sufficient to sealed cover procedur Tribunal on this point learned counsel for th there are serious alleg necessary evidence memo/charge-sheet, it purity of administratio promotion, increment acceptance of this con the employees in many so far, the preliminary long time and particul instance of the interes deliberately. Many tim any charge-memo/cha serious and the auth them, ordinarily it sho the relevant evidence further, if the charges have the power to s relevant rules, and th resort to the sealed co are not without a ,re behalf of the authoriti the Full Bench of the T other. Those conclusio

minal prosecution is issued to n be said that the departmen prosecution is initiated against cover procedure is to be resorted -memo/charge-sheet is issued. T ary investigation prior to that sta o enable the authorities to adopt re. We are in agreement with t. The contention advanced by he appellant-authorities that wh gations and it takes time to coll to prepare and issue char t would not be in the interest of on to reward the employee wit t etc. does not impress us. T ntention would result in injustice y-cases. As has been the experie y investigations take an inordinat larly when they are initiated at sted persons, they are kept pend mes they never result in the issue argesheet. If the allegations horities are keen in investigat ould not take much time to coll and finalise the charges. Wha s are that serious, the authori suspend the employee under he suspension by itself permits ver procedure. The authorities t emedy. It was then contended es that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 Tribunal are inconsistent with ea ons are as follows:

ntal d to The age hen lect rge-f the th a The e to nce tely ding e of are ting lect t is ties s a thus on 4 of

¶8sub of P not issu

9.

¶25wou wh Cou ado und ado con

"(1) consideration f crossing the efficiency be withheld merely o disciplinary or crimina

(2) ...............................

(3)………………………

(4) the sealed cover pr a charge memo is serv charge sheet filed be before."

The said judgment has bsequent judgments of the Apex C Patiala v. O.P.Latka's case (sup ticed the cut off date as on the ued or not to the concerned delin

In the present case,

06.2018 and he remained in jud uld thus, be deemed to be under ich he remained in jail. In view urt, since the petitioner was opting of 'sealed cover proced der suspension would have to be opted even though after he was r ntinued to serve.

for promotion, selection gra y bar or higher scale of pay can on the ground of pendency of al proceedings against an officia ...............… ……………. rocedure can be resorted only af ved on the concerned official or efore the criminal court and s been followed consistently by Court and this Court in State Ba upra) while following the judgme e date when the charge sheet w nquent. the petitioner was arrested dicial custody after 03.08.2018. r suspension after the period dur w of the observations of the Ap under suspension for the per dure' on account of the remain e examined whether the same can released, he rejoined his duties a

ade, nnot f a al; fter not ank ent, on He ring pex riod ning n be

¶10cus par emp to a who can

¶11pro sub to b ind Cou fac dur suff

12.

13.

9.

A categorically tak for the appellan cannot be accep

In the opinion of this stody would be treated as per erefore, the factum of remain rticular period can be a sufficie ployee under 'sealed cover' and s not filed in the criminal procee s also not issued on the relevan adopt the sealed cover. This Co o has been found to be involved nnot be awarded promotion to a

So far as the question osecute ordered vide order date bsequent granting of sanction is c be examined in the present case. dependently in the competent urt. Leaving it open for the pe ct remains that he remained und ring the period of arrest from 25 fficient to adopt 'sealed cover pro

Accordingly, no case f

Petition is dismissed." perusal of the above shows th ken into consideration each and nt. Therefore, the contention of pted by this Court since the lear

Court, the period spent in judic riod spent under suspension a ning in suspension though for ent ground to keep the case of d merely because the charge sh edings or that departmental inqu nt date would not be an impedim ourt further observes that a pers d in a case of corruption / brib higher post. n regarding refusal of sanction ed 07.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) a concerned, the same is not a ma Question still have to be examin proceedings before the crimi titioner to contest the said asp der suspension, it means suspend

5.06.2018 to 03.08.2018 which w ocedure'. for grant of relief is made out. "

hat the learned Single Judge every argument of learned coun f learned counsel for the appell rned Single Judge has categorica

cial and r a f an heet uiry ment rson bery n to and tter ned inal ect, ded has nsel lant

dealt with the ju of India Vs. K. appellant. The j has been rightly found to be invo to a higher post.

10.

A p against the app

15.03.2023, whi

11.

In dated 04.07.202 'Jagtar Singh Si present appeal is

12.

Pen

(SURESHWAR JUDGE

November 19, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh

udgment passed by the Hon'ble S V.Jankiraman (supra), referred judgment passed by the learned y observed by the learned Single olved in a case of corruption/bri . perusal of the record further sh ellant was also given by depar ich was earlier denied. view of the above, we do not f 23 passed by the learned Single J idhu Vs. State of Punjab and ano s dismissed. nding applications, if any, also st

R THAKUR)

2024

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

: Y

Supreme Court in the case of Un d to by the learned counsel for Single Bench is well reasoned. e Judge that a person who has b ibery cannot be awarded promot hows that the prosecution sanct rtment to the Vigilance Bureau find any infirmity in the judgm Judge in CWP-3991-2023, titled other'. The same is upheld and tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA

JUDGE

Speaking

ion . It een tion tion on ment d as A)