2004 HCS selections: HC quashes prosecution of four HCS, one HPS officer
The HC judgment of 2016 is binding on Vigilance Bureau as it has been upheld till Supreme Court. Thus, investigation, which continued qua petitioners after the decision of LPA 1168 of 2015 was illegal and invalid and amounted to overriding the order passed by a court – Justice NS Shekhawat
Quashing criminal prosecution initiated by Haryana anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against four Haryana Civil Service (HCS) and one Haryana Police Service (HPS) officer with regards to their appointments, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that once the government decided to appoint them after declaring them untainted and the decision was accepted by the HC, the decision to treat them as tainted candidates is bad in the eyes of law. The four HCS officers are Jaiveer Yadav, Inderjeet, Ved Prakash, and Sanjeev Kumar. Ashok Kumar is an HPS officer.
These individuals were recommended for appointment by the Haryana Public Service Commission in 2004 during the INLD rule. However, they were not offered appointment letters by the successive Congress government as a cloud was cast on these selections and the matter was investigated by the state vigilance bureau.
Following two separate vigilance investigations which segregated untainted candidates, 38 HCS and allied services officers were offered appointment by the state government in 2016.
However, show cause notices were served by the government to these officers in November 2021 to dispense with their services in wake of petitions filed by candidates who were not given appointments. The notices were issued on the grounds that the entire process of selecting them in 2004 was vitiated.
In July 2023, the vigilance bureau initiated criminal prosecution against these officials by arraigning them as accused in a Hisar court. In August 2023, the HC set aside the November 2021 show cause notices served by the state government conveying its decision to dispense with the services of these officers.
Affidavit of DSP rank officer rejected for a second time by HC
In his January 29, 2025 judgement, justice NS Shekhawat of the high court held that when reports of an independent committee of the state vigilance bureau (now called ACB) have been accepted by the HC and the appointment has already been offered to untainted candidates, any prosecution based on the report of a DSP level officer cannot be allowed to continue and the same is gross misuse of the process of law.
“The charge which is now sought to be established against the petitioners (by ACB) was subject matter of earlier investigation reports and the petitioners were clearly exonerated. The challan is based on the same set of allegations which were subject matter of an enquiry by the independent committee headed by the Haryana Vigilance Bureau additional director general and has been wrongly presented against the petitioners,’’ the HC said.
Quoting a Supreme Court ruling, the HC said that when upon a given set of facts, an officer is exonerated in departmental enquiry, which requires much lower standard of proof for proving the charge, the criminal proceedings based upon same set of facts must result in the failure as the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is much higher.
The HC said the ACB investigation which continued with regards the five officers after a HC decision of 2016 was illegal and invalid and amounted to overriding the order passed by a competent court of law. Such proceedings cannot be allowed to happen or continue. Thus, the prosecution based on an affidavit is liable to be quashed by this court, the HC said.
It said that after the registration of the FIR, the matter was examined twice by the highest officers of the Vigilance Bureau who had prepared detailed reports twice whereby a clean chit was given to the petitioners before this court and they were declared as non-tainted candidates, after examining their answer sheets. “The state government had conveyed to this court that being non-tainted candidates, they could be offered selections by this court. Thus, when the state government had earlier decided and declared the petitioners as non-tainted candidates, the state cannot be allowed to take a somersault and order the prosecution of the petitioners, which is contrary to the two reports submitted by the senior most officers of the Vigilance Bureau,” the HC said.