Amid apprehensions over tampering, state govt hands over record to Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Registrar

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 20

Just over five months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the withdrawal of probe handed over by the State Vigilance Bureau to persons engaged on contract basis, the entire record since the proposal’s mooting to the approvals was handed over to the Registrar Vigilance this evening.

The development took place after an apprehension was expressed before Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj’s Bench regarding the possibility of record tampering as the state government’s senior functionaries were “involved”.

“There is possibility of tampering of record pertaining to the engagement of respondent- Seshan Balasubramony, Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, and respondent-Ramaswamy Parthasarathy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad”, petitioner’s counsel Manish Soni submitted before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench.

Responding to the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner’s counsel, Haryana Additional Advocate-General Deepak Sabherwal undertook that the entire record, also including instructions/authorisation issued to the officials to look into various matter, would be called for and handed over to the Registrar Vigilance Kamaljit Lamba by the evening in the presence of advocate Akshay Jindal appointed as local commissioner to oversee the process

The critical questions regarding the legality of engaging retired officers on a contractual 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.

Taking up the matter, Justice Bhardwaj had on a previous date of hearing 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 had 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 chargesheet or not is yet to be determined,” Justice Bhardwaj had asserted.