Prima facie evidence of active participation, collusion of IAS officer: Haryana to high court

Haryana’s response came on pleas filed by IAS officer Sonal Goel against sanction by the state government for inquiry sought by VB in the graft case

The Haryana government has told the Punjab and Haryana high court that the “adverse role” of IAS officer Sonal Goel, a former commissioner, municipal corporation, Faridabad, has cropped up during the probe of two corruption cases registered by the state vigilance bureau (VB) in Faridabad.

Prima facie evidence of active participation, collusion of IAS officer: Haryana tells high court

Haryana’s response came on pleas filed by Goel against sanction by the state government for inquiry sought by the VB in the graft case.

The 2008-batch IAS officer is of Tripura-cadre and remained on deputation to Haryana for around four years. At present, she is posted as resident commissioner, Tripura, New Delhi.

“..the investigation in the matter has been sanctioned and there is prima facie evidence available showing active participation and collusion of the petitioner. There is thus no reason or occasion as to why such an investigation should be stalled,” the order released by the high court of proceedings on September 30 quotes Haryana additional advocate general Deepak Sabharwal.

Two FIRs registered in March, April

Two FIRs into the alleged scam were registered on March 24, 2022, and April 19, 2022, on allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, public servant disobeying law, preparing false documents and other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against multiple employees.

The case pertains to the allotment of development works in Faridabad during her posting as MC commissioner of the city.

As per the officer, she has not been named in the FIR. She remained MC commissioner from August 6, 2016, to August 14, 2017, and September 16, 2019, to December 31, 2019. In the high court, she has sought quashing of the permission granted 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 government had told the court that the investigation conducted so far clearly showed that the petitioner has been “actively participating in the commission of offence and has abused her position”. The standard operating procedure in the case was followed and any investigation or legal proceeding that has been instituted, continued or enforced is protected under General Clauses Act, 1897.

The court while deferring the hearing for February 28, asked the state to not to arrest the IAS officer but told her to appear before the authorities as and when asked for. The court also said it would examine whether a sanction granted for an already substituted statutory provision is valid and whether the sanction granted, that have already been substituted prior to the grant of sanction is valid and enforceable in law.

The allegations

As per the vigilance during the period October 2017, while posted and functioning as deputy commissioner, Jhajjar, she entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and despite not being the MC commissioner “dishonestly and fraudulently got prepared/generated forged and fictitious documents showing execution of 112 works of repair and maintenance of the value of ₹ 4.90 crore”.

It says no work has actually been executed at the site in as much as in order to deliberately conceal the execution of the work, the proposals were deliberately got prepared in general manner without specifically mentioning the location or the area where such works were allegedly got executed.

In June 2017, she accorded the administrative approval to the estimate prepared by the engineering department in respect of the work relating to providing and laying of inter locking paver tiles and estimate was for ₹ 54.36 lakh. She could not have accorded administrative approval beyond ₹ 50 lakh. She, also as MC commissioner, un-authorisedly and without any proper justification, released payment of ₹ 85.3 lakh cheque favouring a contractor in October 2019, claims the vigilance report submitted in the HC.

HC to examine legality of proceedings

The high court has framed six questions to examine the legality of proceedings initiated against Sonal Goel by the Haryana government.

In her pleas last month, Goel 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 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.