JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in so far as they apply to the public service of the State are ultra vires of the Constitution is the sole question that has been agitated in this writ petition.

(2.) AS is evident, the issue is purely legal and it is, hence unnecessary to advert in detail to the facts. It suffices to mention that Jagjit Singh Petitioner is standing trial under Section 5(1)(d) and (e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Court of the Special Judge at Jullundur. The charges levelled against him are based on his having allegedly amased wealth and property disproportionate to his known sources of income since 1970 onwards during his tenure as the Chairman, Marketing Committee, Jullundur, Chairman, Block Samiti, Jullundur; Managing Director, Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Jullundur and as Sarpanch of his village Panchayat. The offices aforesaid come within the ambit of the definition of a public servant encompassed under the Act and consequently the challenge is laid to the applicability of the Central statute to the public services of the State.

(3.) BY way of analogy reliance has also been placed on the corresponding entries No. 70 and 93 of the Union List I of the Seventh Schedule. The submission herein again is identical, that on a corn -bind reading of the two, Parliament alone would have the jurisdiction to legislate with regard to all offences pertaining to the Union Public Services, All -India Services; Union Public Service Commission. On these premises, it has been strenuously contended that whilst Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the Union Public Services and All -India Services, similarly, the State Legislatures have an equally exclusive field to legislate with regard to the offences with respect to the States' Public services.