Withdraw probe handed over to persons engaged on contract basis: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 10

In a significant judgment on legality and appropriateness of engaging retired officers on a contractual basis for sensitive and crucial investigative roles, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the withdrawal of probe handed over by the State Vigilance Bureau to persons engaged on contract basis.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj also directed that the charge-sheet filed by the contractual engages as the investigating officer would not proceed further and the proceedings would remain stayed. The order will remain in operation at least till the next date of hearing in December.

“Further, the rank of Superintendent of Police in the State of Haryana is assigned in the cadre of All India Services (Indian Police Services) and it is incomprehensible to perceive that appointment at the post of an IPS Cadre is being made on a contractual basis more so when the State is not competent to make appointment to the substantive post itself,” Justice Bhardwaj observed.

The order raising critical questions regarding the legality of engaging retired officers on a contract basis for conducting probe came on a petition challenging the investigation and the proceedings arising out of an FIR registered on September 29, 2022, in a cheating and corruption case registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Appearing before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, counsels Amandeep Vashisth and Manish Soni argued that the investigating officer in the present case was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad. A retired CBI officer, he had been engaged in the State Vigilance Bureau.

Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that the officers had been engaged on contract basis as consultants to guide the investigating officer in the ACB after retiring from the Central Government in 2022. But the employees engaged on contract basis had not only conducted the investigation and filled up the case diary, but also filed the final investigation report under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC instead of guiding the investigating officers.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted the State’s reply did not make any reference to substantive provision of law under which police officers could be engaged on contract basis to conduct investigation, to exercise the powers of gazetted officers and also file the final reports.

Justice Bhardwaj added an attempt was made by the State counsel to contend that the engagement was in exercise of the executive powers. But the documents did not show that any such power had been exercised by the competent authority.

“Vital questions arise for consideration of this court as to whether investigating officers could be appointed to the gazetted rank of Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police by way of contract and as to whether they were authorised to conduct investigation in law and file charge-sheet or not is yet to be determined,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.