Graft case: HC to examine legality of proceedings against IAS officer
The Punjab and Haryana HC has framed six questions to examine the legality of proceedings initiated against IAS officer Sonal Goel by the Haryana government.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has framed six questions to examine the legality of proceedings initiated against IAS officer Sonal Goel by the Haryana government.
Goel, in her pleas filed last month, had challenged the Haryana government’s sanction for “inquiry” sought by the vigilance bureau (VB) pursuant to two FIRs registered in Faridabad against some employees. The issue pertains to corruption in allotment of development works in Faridabad during her posting as the municipal corporation commissioner. The FIRs do not name her as an accused.
Now, the court would examine whether the words ‘enquiry’, ‘inquiry’ and ‘investigation’ have distinct meanings or can be used interchangeably as per the standard operating procedure (SOP) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioner’s argument was that all words have distinct and separate meanings. The state, on the other hand, had argued that though the sanction uses the word ‘inquiry’, the same shall entail within its fold an ‘investigation’.
Another question framed is whether the sanction granted for ‘inquiry’ under Section 17A of the PC Act can be interpreted as a valid sanction for conducting ‘investigation’? In this case, Goel’s argument was that since there is no sanction for investigation, under the garb of a sanction for inquiry, the same cannot be assumed to be taken for authorising investigation.
It would also examine whether ‘substitution’ of statutory provision would have the same meaning as ‘repeal’, ‘amend’, ‘omit’ or ‘delete’? Her argument was that interpretation of these words cannot be equated to the use of word ‘substitution’. Further, it has to examine whether a sanction granted for an already substituted statutory provision is valid.
The questions have cropped up as sanction was accorded by the chief secretary in 2022, even as the said section did not exist in the statute book as the PC Act was amended in 2018. The court would also examine whether a common sanction can be granted for all officials even as the SOP contemplates separate sanction to be obtained for each of them and further whether such an action would render it “bad in law”.
Another aspect to be examined is that whether the sanction granted for the sections of the PC Act, which have already been substituted prior to the grant of sanction, would be valid and enforceable in law.
