Haryana tells HC it will give 7-day notice if IAS officer D Suresh’s custody is required
FIR against nine, including retired officer
Haryana has undertaken before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to give seven days’ advance notice on case the custody of IAS officer D Suresh was required during investigation. A 1995-batch officer of the Haryana cadre retired today, while the matter was taken up by the high court on August 27.
As the petition filed by the IAS officer came up for hearing before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench, the State counsel submitted that “pursuant to grant of sanction vide impugned letter dated July 23, an FIR bearing no.35 dated August 26 has been lodged against nine accused, including the petitioner”.
Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, senior counsel Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia submitted that this was an attempt to overreach the Court as the matter was heard the day before and “serious violation of mandatory procedures committed by the respondents were pointed out”
Ahluwalia added it was also pointed out that the petitioner was going to superannuate from service on August 31 and the attempt was to prevent him from getting the due retirement benefits. “An adjournment was sought by the State counsel to get instructions in the matter; instead of responding to the Court, the FIR has been registered in the evening at 20:13 hours,” he contended.
The State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that sanction to register the FIR was received from the government on July 29. It was forwarded to the Vigilance Bureau, Gurugram, on August 3. The draft FIR was sent to the head office on August 13 and approved on August 25. “Finally, it was registered on August 26. Due procedure has been followed and there is no mala fide involved,” the State counsel told the Bench.
He, however, on instructions from Arjun Rathee, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Station ACB, Gurugram, stated: “In case the petitioner’s custody is required during investigation, he will be issued seven days’ advance notice”.
Issuing notice of motion, the Bench fixed the matter for October 16 after the State counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents and sought time to file reply.
