Amritsar Improvement Trust EO faces chargesheet for transferring land to private individuals

The Punjab Local Government Department has issued notice to Surinder Kumari, Executive Officer (EO), of the Amritsar Improvement Trust (AIT), over alleged violations in handling of land allotted to Indian Airlines for staff housing, nearly four decades ago. According to the departmental notice (includes charges) issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, the government has proposed disciplinary action against the official (The Tribune has copy of the notice).

Surinder Kumari has been granted 21 days to submit a written reply, clarify her position on the charges, and indicate whether she seeks a personal hearing in this connection. The case pertains to one acre of land allotted to the Indian Airlines in 1985 in the Ajnala Road Expansion Scheme at a concessional rate of Rs 270 per square yard (total Rs 13,06,800) for the construction of residential quarters for its staff.

The government approval for this allotment was granted in 1987 with explicit relaxation of rules. Both the allotment letter and the 1988 agreement barred the airline from selling or using the land for any purpose other than staff housing.

Over the years, the Improvement Trust repeatedly reminded the airline that the plot could not be sold to private parties. Letters issued by the Trust in 1993 and 2002 clearly stated that if Indian Airlines wished to give up land, it must surrender it back to the AIT at the original price, as the plot was allotted at a concessional rate and was not meant for sale.

The notice states that despite full knowledge of these conditions, Indian Airlines sold the land to a private individual, Gurdeep Kaur. Instead of cancelling the allotment for this violation, the notice alleges that EO Surinder Kumari acted with mala fide intent and proceeded to approve a change of ownership in favour of Gurdeep Kaur's sons, Arvinder Singh and Tarunjeet Singh, on April 15, 2024.

The government accused her of dereliction of duty, causing financial loss to the Trust, and acting against its interests. The notice states that such actions harmed reputation of the government and made the official concerned liable for penalties under service rules. The EO has been asked to clarify whether she accepts allegations or wishes to present her defence. The department has also warned that failure to respond within the stipulated 21 days will be considered as her unwillingness to offer any explanation. Despite attempts, Surinder Kumari did not respond to repeated phone calls.