HC relief for members of HPSC

CHANDIGARH: Acting on a petition filed by Chatter Singh, Yudhbir Singh and another member of the Haryana Public Service Commission, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order whereby a Panchkula Court had taken cognizance of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act without previous sanction of the Central Government.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 1

Acting on a petition filed by Chatter Singh, Yudhbir Singh and another member of the Haryana Public Service Commission, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order whereby a Panchkula Court had taken cognizance of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act without previous sanction of the Central Government.

Two revisions were filed before the Bench of Justice Anita Chaudhry for assailing the order dated May 6, 2010 vide which the Panchkula Additional Sessions Judge had framed charges against the petitioners and certain other alleged beneficiaries.

Going into the background, the petitioners had contended that an FIR was registered for cheating and other offences under the IPC along with certain sections of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Initially, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board had sent a requisition to the commission for filling four posts of environment engineer. The allegations were that certain persons were ineligible being overage. Yet, they applied as there was some understanding between them and other accused, including Yudhbir Singh and Chhattar Singh. They were later selected.

As the case came up for hearing, counsel appearing for the state was candid enough to admit that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority. He also placed on record a letter sent by the Government of Haryana for placing the record before the President of India for sanction.

Taking up the matter, Justice Chaudhry asserted: “The authority competent to remove members of the Public Service Commission is the authority who can accord sanction and admittedly it is the President of India. In that view of the matter since there is no sanction by the competent authority it would be appropriate that liberty is granted to the respondent state to approach the competent authority for sanction and then proceed afresh against the petitioners. The impugned order is set aside. Needless to mention if appropriate sanction is received from the competent authority, the matter can be proceeded against the petitioner”.