Case: State Of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna

Scale Industries and Export Corporation) reported in writing that they paid Rs. 2 lacs for laying the Cricket Pitch at Mohali.(iv) The note dated 21.1.1997 of Chief Administrator PUDA brought out may serious irregularities in regard to grant of funds for the Cricket Stadium and the `PCA Club.(v) It had also come to the Petitioners notice that Sh. Bindra directed other companies like Punjab Tractors Ltd., Punwire, PACL etc. not to furnish any information to the Chief Secretary about payments made by them to the Punjab Cricket Association.(vi) The glaring fact that Sh. Bindra had transferred the land to the Punjab Cricket Association at his own level, without the approval of the Finance Department or any higher authority like Minister or Chief Minister, even though the approval of Council of Ministers was mandatory under the rules. The Sports Department itself did not have any title to the property. It still does not have it.(vii) The land use was changed by the Housing Development Board from Sports Complex/Cycle Velodrome to Cricket Stadium at Sh. Bindras behest, following collusive and malafide "interdepartmental meetings" with Sh. Mann.(viii) Housing Board connived at serious encroachments made by the PCA which is actually in occupation of about 20 acres, as against 105. acres, as against 10.5 acres mentioned in the decision of the Governor-in-Council (order dated 29.4.91) which in any case was not for a Cricket Stadium, but for a Sports Complex/Velodrome." It is on this score Mr. Subramaniam for respondent No. 1 contended that the factual context as noted hereinbefore prompted the Chief Secretary to submit the note to the Chief Minister and the allegation of not assessing the factual situation in its entirety cannot be said to be correct. 36. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at this stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malce or malafide, motive involved in the mater of issue of a charge-sheet or the concerned authority is so based that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusion are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court in the contextual facts has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings. 37. The High Court while delving into the issue went into the factum of announcement of the Chief Minister in regard to appointment of an Inquiry Officer to substantiate the frame of mind of the authorities and thus depicting bias - What bias means has already been dealt with by us earlier in this judgment, a such it does not require any further dilation but the factum of announcement has been taken note of as an illustration to a mind set viz. : the inquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply - Is it an indication of a free and fair attitude towards the concerned officer? The answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative. it is well settled in Service Jurisprudence that the concerned authority has to apply its mind upon receipt to the charge-sheet or show-cause as th case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative - the inquiry follows by not otherwise and it is this part of Service Jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. Subramaniam and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents here and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record. 38. Admittedly, two enquiries were floated through CBI but purity and probity being the key words in public service and in the event a civil servant is alleged to have assets dis-proportionate to his income or in the event, there was parting of a huge property in support of which adequate data was not available - can the action be said to be the resultant effect of the personal vendetta or can any chargesheet be issued on the basis thereof, the answer cannot possibly be but in the negative. 39. The contextual facts depict that there is a noting by an official in the administration that certain vigilance matters are pending as against open of Secretaries but that stands ignored. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter in detail therein before in this judgment thus suffice it to note that further effort on the part of Shri Khanna in bringing to notice to the Chief Minister would not have resulted any further development and in that perspective that conduct of Shri Khanna cannot be faulted in any way. These are the instances which the High Court ascribed to be not in accordance with the known principles of law and attributed motive as regards initiation of the chargesheet. Opinion of the Court40. As noticed above malafide intent or biased attitude cannot be put on a straight jacket formula but depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and in that perspective judicial precedents would not be of any assistance and as such we refrain from further dealing with various decision cited from the Bar since facts are otherwise different in each of the decisions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]40. As noticed above malafide intent or biased attitude cannot be put on a straight jacket formula but depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and in that perspective judicial precedents would not be of any assistance and as such we refrain from further dealing with various decision cited from the Bar since facts are otherwise different in each of the decisions.