The Haryana government is contemplating disciplinary action against Haryana civil service (HCS) officer Shiv Prasad Sharma for illegal allotment of multiple plots of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to defence officers during his tenure as estate officer in Faridabad in 2007-08.
HUDA chief administrator AK Singh informed the Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday, “All three draws were held during Sharma’s tenure. Of three plots, two plots have been cancelled. We are recommending disciplinary action against the officer to the chief secretary.”
He said another HCS officer Narender Yadav, during his tenure as estate officer, Faridabad, had only signed one allotment letter and rest all letters had been signed by Sharma.
Gurgaon-based complainant SK Sharma, on the last date of hearing, had informed the court that under the RTI Act, he had received information that showed clear connivance of Sharma and Yadav in the allotment of multiple plots in Faridabad in 2007 and 2008.
Beneficiaries were three defence officers, namely Zile Singh (sectors 64 and 65), Arvind Nain (sectors 62 and 64) and Ramchander (sectors 62 and 64). Sharma said all three officers further sold off the plots.
Justice Daya Chaudhary directed the Haryana government to inform on the next date of hearing as to how many FIRs had been registered in the multiple plot allotment cases across the state, and how many cases were there in which FIRs were yet to be registered.
The court observed that the state government’s affidavit “neither mentions the number of FIRs registered till date, nor any investigation progress”.
Petitioner Dharam Singh Yadav also submitted a list of 50 defence officers who had allegedly got multiple allotments of plots from HUDA under the defence category. The court directed AK Singh to check the legality of these allotments.
The court also directed AK Singh to check allotment of a plot to a gardener named Krishan Kumar in Jhajjar from advocates’ quota on the recommendations of the Jhajjar bar association, as alleged.
Appearing for the state government, advocate general Hawa Singh Hooda said there was no need to hand over the inquiry to the CBI, and in case the court directed, a special investigating team could be constituted to probe the case thoroughly.
Justice Chaudhary took a serious view of the HUDA officials “going slow” in investigation of the case. “Over a year has passed since the starting of the case. You (HUDA officials) are interested in delaying the case.”
Plots of IAS officer
AK Singh informed the court that when former HUDA chief administrator TC Gupta applied for the HUDA plot in February 1999, there was no plot in his name, as alleged, and his affidavit was in compliance with the HUDA rules. Gupta’s wife had transferred the plot six months before he filed the affidavit, AK Singh said. Whereas the counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the complainant said the affidavit was not as per requirement as neither he had disclosed the name of his spouse nor the plot allotted in her name.
For the petitioner, senior advocate Jasjit Singh Bedi submitted that the FIR was on the same ground and the petitioner’s case could not be differentiated from others as the requirement of the affidavit was that the plot had never been allotted to any family member.