Allowed

Rai Singh v. Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2010CWP/764/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued a writ of mandamus to restrain the Vigilance Department from conducting an inquiry against an ex-Sarpanch. The Court relied on State Government instructions directing that complaints against Sarpanches be handled by administrative departments.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directed the Vigilance Department to forthwith stop the inquiry against the petitioner and refer the complaint to Respondents No. 3 and 4 for action.

Rai Singh Vs Chief Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 764 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 764 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: 16.07.2010

Rai Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Director of VigilanceBureau Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma

¶11

Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.N.S.Virk, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Vinod K.Sharma,J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner, who is an ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Panjkosi Block Khuiasarwarat Abohar, District Ferozepur seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents No.1 and 2, to stop the inquiry against the petitioner, and hand over to the Rural Development & Panchayat Department, as per the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time.

¶15

CWP No. 764 of 2010

¶16

¶17

Petitioner was elected Sarpanch in the year 1998 and thereafter for the second time in 2003. Thus, the petitioner was Sarpanch of the village from 1998 to 2008 for a period of 10 years. During his tenure as Sarpanch, the petitioner got executed development works and most of the utilization certificates for the work done were submitted to the authorities, whereas few certificates could not be issued as election process had started. The case of the petitioner is, that said works were duty entered in the cash book and the register.

¶18

On election of new Panchyat in the year 2009, due to party faction relatives of Ex-Chief Minister attempted to get the petitioner punished by conducting inquiry through the Vigilance Department, for the reason that the petitioner gained popularity and got the majority of votes polled in favour of Congress in the last election of Punjab Legislative Assembly.

¶19

The complaints made against the petitioner was referred to the Vigilance Department, which initiated inquiry against the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged holding of inquiry by the Vigilance Department by placing reliance on the instructions issued by the Government vide Memo No.19/2/83-V(3)/1031 dated 2.02.1983, Annexure P.3.

¶21

As per Annexure P.3, Government has taken a conscious decision, that the complaint against Sarpanches, Panches and Municipal Councillors are not to be looked into by Vigilance Department/Vigilance Bureau but has to be looked into by the concerned department.

¶22

CWP No. 764 of 2010

¶23

¶24

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that in view of instructions Annexure P.3, the Vigilance Department may be restrained from continuing with the inquiry and matter be referred to Administrative Department for taking decision, as to whether they wish to proceed against the petitioner or not, and in case they decide to do so, they may proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in CWP No.506 of 2006

¶26

Karnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, decided on 22.5.2006, wherein learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in view of instructions, Annexure P.3, had conceded that the inquiry could not be conducted by the Vigilance Department, but was conducted by the department on the administrative side.

¶27

Learned Additional Advocate, General, Punjab does not dispute this proposition of law.

¶28

It is not disputed that the instructions have been issued by the State of Punjab directing that Vigilance Department shall not look into the complaints against Sarpnaches/Panches/Municipal councillors.

¶29

The petitioner is a Sarpanch and complaint were made regarding lapses, while he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, therefore, it is not open to the Vigilance Department, to hold inquiry in this complaint, as it is only the administrative department which can inquire into the complaint.

¶30

For the reasons stated, the writ petition is allowed. Writ of

¶31

CWP No. 764 of 2010

¶32

¶33

mandamus is issued to the Vigilance Department i.e. Respondents No.1 to 2 to forthwith stop the inquiry against the petitioner, and refer the complaint to Respondents No.3 and 4, for taking appropriate action, if so desired.

¶34

16.07.2010 rp`

¶35

(Vinod K.Sharma) Judge

Rai Singh v. Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rai Singh v. Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbagh @ Darbara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ram Sarup and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Ridamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Panjab University, Chd. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Manoj Dubey Vs State of Haryana