JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a freedom fighter, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to submit charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to FIR No. 17. dated January 23, 1990, under Sections 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, the Act) of Police Station Ropar.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that he is a freedom fighter. He applied for getting tubewell electricity connection to the Punjab State Electricity Board. The office of this Board sent demand notice to him in the year 1968. When the petitioner contacted Sunder Lal Mashal, Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division Chamkaur Sahib, he demanded some money for getting the said electricity connection in the name of the petitioner. Initially the petitioner declined, but when said Sunder Lal Mashal did not accede to his request, he approached the department of respondent No. 2. This department arranged a trap. On January 23,1990, the petitioner paid Rs. 500/-to Sunder Lal Mashal, purporting to be bribe, and officials of respondent No. 2 arrested him red-handed at that very time. Sunder Lal Mashal was later on released on bail by the competent Court. Respondent No. 2 concluded the investigation in connection with the aforesaid FIR and prepared the charge-sheet, but still the respondents have not filed the charge sheet against Sunder Lal Mashal, which is prayed for. Further, despite this FIR respondent No. 3 has promoted Sunder Lal Mashal as Executive Engineer.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 in his reply has averred that demand notice was issued to the petitioner by Rural Electrification Corporation (R. S. C.) Sub-Division, Ropar, and Sunder Lal Mashal had nothing to do with it. Three months time was given to the petitioner for filing test report by Gurdial Singh. Suh-Divisional Officer, REC Sub-Division Ropar up to December 26, 1988. who later on verified the test report of the petitioner at site, but thereafter the Board scrapped the scheme of release of tubewell connections through REC Organisation during October 1989. Ultimately work was stopped by SDO/ REC Ropar during October 1989. Thereafter all the pending tubewell applications and lest reports were transferred by REC Ropar to Assistant Executive Engineer D/s Sub Division. Chamkaur Sahib, in the month of October 1989. Ajaib Singh AEE was lncharge of this Sub-Division. Ajaib Singh issued Service Connection Order No. 151/1448 dated November 2, 1989, for release of lube well connection to the petitioner. Copy of that order is at Annexure R-1. Thus, it is averred that Sunder Lal Mashal was in no way concerned with the release of tubewell connection of the petitioner upto this stage. The Superintending Engineer, Distribution Circle. Ropar, directed Tirath Sjngh, Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Ropar. to attend the work of pending test reports through Assistant Executive Engineer/distribution Sub-Division, Ropar, and it was at that stage that Sunder Lal for the first time in November, 1989 came to be associated with the release of tube well connections in the area. Photostat copy of that order is at Annexure-R-2. Sunder Lal got prepared the group estimate from his concerned Junior Fngineer Gurcharan Singh. The same was sanctioned by Executive Engineer. Distribution Division. Ropar. bearing No. 93192/89-90. Copy of this order is at Annexure R. 3. The material for erection work of line for release of connection was got drawn from store from January 5. 1990 to January 8, 1990. by his staff. A transformer for system improvement was erected by Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution Sub-Division, Chamkaur Sahib, from where the connection of the petitioner was to be released. This transformer was to be energised after getting approval from the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab, by the said Sub-Division Chamkaur Sahib vide order Annexure R-4. Thus, the work had already been completed as per statement of Junior Engineer. Gurcharan Singh and there was no occasion for Sunder Lal to have any talk with the petitioner for demanding the bribe or to accept the same. Copies of such reports are at Annexures R-5 and R-6. It is alleged that the case of according approval for the prosecution of Sunder Lal was considered by the competent authority. The case was considered in totality from all angles and the competent authority declined to accord the approval for the prosecution of Sunder Lai. The decision was conveyed to respondents 1 and 2. Further, in view of the instructions of the Board that if FIR case has not been decided within a specified period against the official, he should be considered for promotion, crossing of efficiency bar etc. after two years from the date of lodging of the FIR. In this case, as sanction for prosecution was not accorded by the competent authority. Sunder Lal was considered for promotion and he was promoted as Executive Engineer in December 1993 with the approval of the competent authority as per Annexure R-9. There is nothing on record that Sunder Lai threatened the petitioner. He has no concern with the petitioner.