Disciplinary proceedings for penalty recommended against Chandigarh judicial officer

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 24

The vigilance/disciplinary committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for imposing major penalty against judicial officer Manoj Dahiya. He is currently posted as the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Chandigarh.

Information to this effect was placed before Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan’s Bench during the hearing of a bunch of petitions. The Bench, among other things, was told that the Officer on Special Duty (Vigilance), on May 17, 2019, conducted a discreet inquiry and submitted a report, which was placed before the High Court’s vigilance/disciplinary committee on August 9.

It was recommended that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 4 (b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, should be initiated against the officer. The prayer, in one of the petitions before Justice Sangwan’s Bench, was for issuance of directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation to inquire into “the matter regarding corruption in gold scam, wherein one judicial officer and some police officers are also involved”.

Counsel for petitioner Suresh Kumar relied upon some communications, newspaper reports and CD recordings allegedly made by the witnesses “highlighting the scam in which the accused usurped crores of rupees”. The Bench was also told that a number of complaints were submitted to the state crime branch cell.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sangwan on the previous date of hearing called a report from the High Court Registrar, Vigilance. He was asked to specify whether a departmental inquiry was pending against Dahiya and another judicial officer

Justice Sangwan observed that a report in a sealed cover, placed before the Bench, reflected that a complaint was received by the Haryana Director-General of Police on May 15 against the two judicial magistrates. It was forwarded to the High Court on May 15, 2019, for initiating prosecution, after which the discreet inquiry was conducted.

“Since the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-judicial officer have already been initiated and nothing is found against the other respondent-judicial officer, this petition qua the two respondents is disposed of having been rendered infructuous,” Justice Sangwan asserted.