Paying money for jobs act of illegality: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 12

In a significant judgment liable to bring within the ambit of law persons paying money for procuring jobs in the government sector, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the act amounted to committing an illegality.

“This court would also like to observe that the present matter is a case where, as per the case of the complainant, he had paid money to the petitioner for getting seven of his relatives recruited to government jobs in an illegal manner, which brings to the fore the fact that the complainant has, even as per his own version, committed an illegality,” Justice Vikas Bahl asserted.

The matter was brought to Justice Bahl’s notice after an accused moved the High Court against the state of Punjab for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered for cheating and other offences on January 11 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC. Justice Bahl’s Bench, among other things, was told that the petitioner, working as an assistant linesman in the Punjab Electricity Board Department, was falsely implicated in the present case. He had taken a loan for the construction of a house from the complainant party (relatives). He had repaid the same. However, a dispute arose “on account of the fact that the complainant’s son was keeping a bad eye on the petitioner’s wife and wanted to have an illicit relationship with her”.

Justice Bahl added that the FIR’s perusal showed — as per the complainant’s case — Rs42 lakh was paid for recruiting seven relatives of the complainant. Of the total, Rs24,50,000 was returned to the complainant.

Justice Bahl further added that the question whether it was a loan transaction or a case where the complainant paid money for getting seven relatives recruited to government jobs would finally be adjudicated during the course of the trial.

Justice Bahl observed that the petitioner’s counsel had argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR were doubtful. He had argued that it was highly improbable that a person could arrange jobs for seven immediate family members in any department, more so in the absence of an advertisement regarding any open post.

Justice Bahl added that the petitioner’s argument that the allegations did not inspire confidence could not be rejected outright. In any case, all factors would be considered during the course of the trial. The petitioner had admittedly joined the investigation and was not required for further investigation. The entire dispute was based on documents. As such, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was not required, Justice Bahl added while confirming the interim bail order.