MANDEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of sanction for his prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There were two cases registered, one by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab (against officials of the Punjab Govt.) and one by the CBI against him. Vigilance Bureau of Punjab registered Case FIR No.13/2002 against Shri Nirmal Singh Kahlon, the then Minister, Rural Development & Panchayats for abusing his position as such, to recruit his favourites to the various posts of Tax Collector, Patwaris, Peons, Clerks and further Panchayat Secretary etc., against the receipt of bribe money by overlooking the deserving candidates and further for the allegation that he amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC & Section 13(1)(d)(e) PC Act, 1988. After investigation, the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab filed a charge-sheet against accused Nirmal Singh Kahlon and J.P. Singla where Joginder Singh, Chairman of one of the Selection Committees constituted for recruitment of Panchayat Secretaries, was cited as a witness.

(2.) In a CWP No.5283 of 2003 titled Veero Devi v. State of Punjab and others, this court formed a prima facie opinion that irregularities in the selection process in respect of 909 Panchayat Secretaries had been committed and this Court ordered to get the matter probed by an officer not below the rank of Secretary to the Government vide order dated 03.04.2002. Apart from that in CWP No.20005/2002 by order dated 07.05.2003 this Court directed to get the scam involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries during the years 1996 to 2001, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation to which the concurrence of the State of Punjab was given and the present case RC-8(S)/2003/SIC-IV/CBI/New Delhi was registered.

(3.) During investigation of the case by CBI, accused Joginder Singh, the then Chairman of one of the Selection Committees, confessed self-incriminating role and also revealed the incriminating role of other accused persons u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He was granted pardon by the trial Court and was made an Approver in the CBI case. He revealed forgery of documents and illegal financial dealings of the accused persons including the petitioner. Sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence was collected during investigation to substantiate the commission of offences under sections 120-B r/w 468, 471 and 201 and 465 IPC and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act 1988 against the accused persons including the accused-petitioner.