Prosecution sanction denied in corruption case against HCS officer

Geetanjali Gayatri

Chandigarh, December 21

Recommending the denial of grant of prosecution sanction against under-suspension HCS officer Amarinder Singh, the Chief Secretary office has directed the DG, Vigilance, to fix responsibility of those involved in arresting the officer without seeking prior permission and for “apparently willful violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.

The officer, posted as DTO, Ambala, was booked and arrested by the State Vigilance Bureau following an FIR on December 17, 2021, under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B of the IPC. Later, he was placed under suspension after which a decision to chargesheet him under Rule 7 was taken. During the raids, it was found that overloaded trucks were being allowed to go for a payment of Rs 6,000 per truck per month in connivance with officials.

While denying sanction, the Chief Secretary’s office, said a decision about the disciplinary proceedings should be taken.

Adding that prior sanction under Section 17A (before proceeding against the officer) was not taken, the recommendations said that “the case is neither of raid” nor of being “ex-facie criminal”. For violating the provisions Act, the DG, State Vigilance Bureau, was asked to fix responsibility for arresting of the officer.

The HCS officer, in a representation to the Chief Secretary’s office, alleged he was being “falsely implicated and illegally arrested”. Though six months had elapsed since his suspension, there was no evidence against him with the State Vigilance Bureau. The report said there was no evidence to connect the money trail to the officer.

CM Manohar Lal Khattar sought legal opinion in the matter. Rejecting the recommendation, the AG office, quoting various judgements, opined that “this is a fit case” for grant of sanction and there has been no violation of any provisions of the PC Act since the acts of the accused were “ex-facie criminal and not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the accused in the discharge of his official duties”. It adds that since the arrest was made on the basis of evidence on record, there is no question of fixing responsibility of anybody in the State Vigilance Bureau. The opinion by the Advocate General’s office states that there is “abundant evidence of prima facie involvement” of the HCS officer. The CM has to take the final decision in the matter.