Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors

One Shri Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission between 1996 to 2002. Allegations were made against him that he got a large number of persons appointed on extraneous consideration including monetary consideration. Such appointments were said to have been made during the period 1998 to 2001. Raids were conducted in his house on more than one occasion. A large sum of money (about Rs. 16 crores) was recovered from his custody and other relatives. Two First Information Reports; one on 25.3.2002 being FIR No. 7/02 and the other on 30.4.2002 being FIR No. 24/02; were lodged against him in that behalf. In the said First Information Reports nine officers of PCS (Executive Branch) were named but later on the allegations against two of them, viz., Rahul and Randip were withdrawn. As against sixty three officers involved in the PCS allied services; First Information Report was lodged only against one Kamaljeet Singh. So far as appointment to the posts of Tehsildar is concerned, FIR was lodged against none.

Result sheets of the nominated candidates were seized on 17.5.2002. Answer sheets of PCS (Executive Branch) were also seized. On or about 21.5.2002 the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Punjab alleging that most of the examinations held during the period of Shri Sidhu were tainted. On the next day, a memorandum of 90 pages was issued. So far as the nominated candidates are concerned, Vigilance Department of State, as noticed hereinbefore, received the answer sheets for 1998 examination and sent a report to the investigating agency on 21.5.2002. On that date itself the nominated candidates were given charge of the Executive Magistrate but on the next date, i.e., on 22.5.2002, the Vigilance Bureau on purported receipt of the details of interview of nominated candidates sent a note to a Chief Secretary whereupon orders of termination were passed on 23.5.2002. All the officers in the category of nominated executive officers were about to complete their period of probation. The services of the nominated candidates (Class I Officers) were terminated simpliciter purported to be in terms of the Rules, i.e., by terminating the probation.

The High Court moreover pointed out some irregularities found in the answer sheets of the some of the candidates in regard whereto 13 purported instances were noticed by it. Cases of some of the candidates who were denied selection to PCS (EB) by giving unusually low marks in the interview were highlighted in the judgment. As many as nine such cases were noticed to have been belonging to this category of irregularities. The High Court furthermore noticed the purported irregularities in the recruitments made for appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) from the written submissions made by the State in respect whereof, cases of 10 candidates had specifically been noticed. So far as the purported similarity in grant of marks in the interview is concerned, the High Court noticed that out of the 263 candidates interviewed for selection for direct recruitment to PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services, 172 candidates were given identical marks by the interviewers. 230 candidates had obtained marks having difference of one mark and 58 candidates having difference of two marks. So far as the nominated candidates are concerned, the High Court noticed that no allegation could be made as regards the irregularities and illegalities in conducting the written examination, but opined:

In the Allied Services out of 63 candidates, First Information Report was lodged as against only one of them. So far as those who were appointed on the post of Tehsildars are concerned, out of 19, First Information Report was lodged against none.

It has also been pointed out that out of 18 nominated selectees who had filed writ petitions in the High Court, only 15 candidates have filed appeals before us and 12 have been named by the witnesses although First Information Reports were initially lodged against them. So far as direct recruits to PCS (E.B.) are concerned, 18 have filed appeals before us and out of whom 7 were named by the witnesses and the First Information Reports were lodged against them. So far as the candidates selected in the Allied Services are concerned, out of 63 selected candidates only 24 have filed appeals before us and they are not named in the First Information Report or as witnesses.

The materials supplied to the Committee, having regard to the fact that most of the officers named in the First Information Report were of 2001 batch, cannot be held to be sufficient so as to come to the conclusion that the entire selection process for 1999 and 2000 was vitiated. Despite the fact that the selection process for the year 1998 was not the subject matter of the enquiry, recommendations had been made by the Committee for cancellation of appointment of the candidates of 1998 batch also. The Full Court without any basis whatsoever recommended dismissal of all the Judicial Officers. Only when the Additional Secretary of the Government of Punjab vide a letter dated 27.9.2002 which was received by the High Court on 28.9.2002, drew its attention in that behalf, another committee was constituted by the then Acting Chief Justice on 10.10.2002 evidently, after the said matter was discussed in the Full Court. Two of the five member Committee were also the members of the first Committee. The second Committee again considered the statements of the approver and one other witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also other documents placed before it and came to the opinion: (1) Performance of most of the selected candidates was below average and the marks awarded to them were disproportionate to the answers given by them. (The aforementioned opinion was made on the basis of some of the answer sheets of some of the selected candidates and those who had not been selected.) (2) The marks originally given to the candidates were scored off and unjustifiably increased obviously with a view to ensure their selection. (3) Another feature which was noticed that the answer sheets of some of the non-selected candidates were qualitatively better than some of those who had been selected but they had been awarded lesser marks, presumably, with a view to push them down.

The Committee opined:

Envelop No. 3- Answer Sheets of Maninder Singh PCS(J)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 26)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 9)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 27)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 16)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 23)

e) Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 34) Envelop No. 8 Answer Sheets of Monika Sethi PCS (J)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 17)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 26)

a) English (Pages 1 to 17)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 17)

c) Civil Law I (Pages 1 to 23)

b) Punjabi (Pages 1 to 10)

e) Criminal Law (Pages 1 to 15) Envelop No. 12 Answer Sheets of Sapana Singhal (Dental Demonstrator) Pages 1 to 16."

We, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that it is necessary to direct consideration of the matters afresh. We have not been apprised whether in the criminal cases any further material had been gathered so as to implicate the appellants before us.

We were, however, told that some new appointments have been made, the effect whereof, would certainly be the subject to the decision of this case. We, however, do not intend to set aside the said appointments at this stage. We also do not intend to disturb the status quo.

The impugned judgment as also the orders of the State Government and the High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside and directions are issued. Although the impugned judgments cannot be sustained, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matters afresh. However, with a view to segregate between the tainted with non-tainted and that in the interest of justice the High Court should be requested to constitute two independent scrutiny committees one relating to the executive officers and the other relating to the judicial officers.

We would, furthermore, request the High Court to consider the desirability of delineating the area which would fall for consideration by such Committees within a time frame. Copies of such reports of the Committees shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners and/or at least they should be given inspection thereof. The parties shall be given opportunity to inspect any document including the answer sheets etc. if an application, in that behalf is filed. Such inspection shall, however, be permitted to be made only in presence of an officer of the court. The Appellants shall be given two weeks time only for submitting their objections to such reports and their comments, if any, on any material whereupon the High Court places reliance from the date of supply of copies or inspection is given. Having regard to the fact that the appellants are out of job for a long time, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability disposing of the matter as expeditious as possible and preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Before parting with the case, however, we may observe that it is expected that the State having regard to the magnitude of the matter shall leave no stone unturned to bring the guilty to book. It is the duty of the State to unearth the scam and spare no officer howsoever high he may be. We expect the State to make a thorough investigation into the matter. These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the directions and observations made hereinbefore.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.