JOGINDER SINGH PUAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Crl. Revision No. 1178 of 2003 filed by Joginder Singh Puar, Crl. Revision No. 1510 of 2003 filed by Sarwan Kumar Gupta and Crl. Revision No. 1179 of 2003 filed by Dr. Inderjit Singh Bansal and three others against the order dated 31.3.2003 passed by Special Judge, Patiala.

(2.) VIDE the impugned order, the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegations that the petitioner abused his position as Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University, Patiala during the years 1995 and 1996 in appointing Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department of Punjabi University, Patiala by giving undue advantage to him. The other allegation was that the petitioner, during the period from 6.10.1995 to January 1996, abused his position as Vice- Chancellor by corrupt and illegal means and obtained for himself pecuniary advantage i.e. 30% of Rs. 20 lacs. which was paid to his co-accused Sarwan Kumar Gupta in respect of setting up of Shamiana on the occasion of Science Congress held in January 1996 in the University Campus at Patiala and 50% of Rs. 10 lacs paid to said Sarwan Kumar Gupta towards over-payment in respect of setting up of Shamiana on the said function.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Nagar Singh was a highly qualified person having M.A., M.Phil in Sociology. He made an application (Annexure P.1) dated 5.12.1995 to the petitioner seeking appointment against the post of Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department of Punjabi University, Patiala. This application was marked by the petitioner on 6.12.1995 to the Head of the Lexicography Department. Said Nagar Singh appeared for interview before Head of the Lexicography Department, who vide endorsement dated 12.12.1995 recommended the appointment of Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months. Accordingly, the file was put up before the petitioner on 14.12.1995 who approved the appointment of Nagar Singh on ad hoc basis for six months. However, on the same day, an office note was put on the file of Nagar Singh that he was not having requisite three years' experience for the post and in fact there was no post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Lexicography Department. Establishment Branch then came up with a suggestion that the post of Technical Assistant lying vacant in the Sociology Department may be transferred and condition of three years of experience be relaxed. On 29.12.1995, the petitioner approved the shifting of the post and relaxation of the condition requiring three years' experience. Finally on 5.1.1996 Nagar Singh was given appointment for six months on ad hoc basis after relaxing the condition of three years' experience in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate. On 20.2.1996, item No. 27 on the agenda was taken up by the Syndicate for approval of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor vide which he had appointed Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant after giving relaxation of three years' experience on ad hoc basis for six months. However, said item was withdrawn. There was another item No. 74 in the same agenda seeking approval of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor whereby qualifications for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant in Lexicography Department were changed. As per the same condition of experience was relaxed in case of higher and better qualified candidates. However, it was provided that candidates having experience would be preferred. As mentioned above, item No. 27 on the agenda was withdrawn, meaning thereby that the approval by the Syndicate was not granted to the appointment of Nagar Singh as Technical Assistant. Consequently on 22.3.1996 Nagar Singh was relieved from the post. Then arose the need to seek approval of the Syndicate for payment of salary to Nagar Singh for the period from 5.1.1996 to 22.3.1996. The same was passed on 28.6.1996 by the Syndicate vide item No. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel contended that the appointment of Nagar Singh was done as per the prescribed procedure and there was no question of the petitioner abusing his position.