E-Paper
HC restrains Haryana government from taking any coercive action against IAS officer
The case pertains to the allotment of development works in Faridabad during the officer’s posting as municipal corporation (MC) commissioner of the city
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday restrained the Haryana government from taking any coercive action against IAS officer Sonal Goel.
The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj acted on the plea of Goel. Though the detailed order is awaited, her lawyer Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia confirmed the development.
On July 14, the state government had approved investigation sought by the vigilance bureau (VB) into a corruption case following a first information report (FIR) registered on April 19. The FIR was registered by the VB against the contractor and some employees. The case pertains to the allotment of development works in Faridabad during her posting as municipal corporation (MC) commissioner of the city.
The allegations in the FIR are of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, public servant disobeying law, preparing false documents and various other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against multiple employees.
The 2008-batch IAS officer is of the Tripura-cadre and remained on deputation to Haryana for around four years. At present, she is posted as the resident commissioner, Tripura, New Delhi.
In the high court, she sought directions to set aside the permission under Section 17A of the PC Act, claiming that the action of the VB, Faridabad, was ultra vires and in contravention to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The plea also says that she was not working as the Faridabad MC commissioner either at the time when the work order was sanctioned or at the time of acceptance of revised or re-revised estimate of the cost of work. The VB has failed to recognise the act of giving administrative sanction for any proposal that had originated because of a recommendation by the local MLA/ward councillor of the constituency. The proposal was approved at different levels before the administrative approval was taken from the petitioner, the plea says.
The high court has sought response from the government by February 8.
