*Prosecution sanction of only junior officers granted
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, July 23: Notwithstanding the fact that the State Vigilance Organization (SVO) has established the involvement of an IAS officer in the major land scam of the State, the General Administration Department has given clean chit to him by overruling the findings of the premier investigating agency of Jammu and Kashmir. The decision of the GAD has brought to the fore that Government is hell bent to shield the senior bureaucrats but adopting no leniency in granting prosecution sanction of the junior officers.
The investigation into irregularities in the implementation of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 was launched after the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India shared its findings with the State Vigilance Organization through Principal Accountant General of J&K.
Accordingly, several FIRs were lodged by the premier investigating agency of the State and investigation was initiated. In case FIR No.15/2014 registered at Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu, after the conclusion of the investigation of the case as proved, the findings were submitted to the State Vigilance Commission in compliance to Rule 24 (1) of J&K State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013 vide Communication No. VO-FIR/15/2014-J-15917 dated December 12, 2014.
The State Vigilance Commission vide Order No. SVC/Gen-140/2014 dated December 30, 2014 returned the case with some observations/ advice and with the direction that after doing the needful the case be sent to competent authority for accord of sanction for prosecution of in-service accused public servants.
After clarification of the observations, the investigation of the case was concluded as proved against IAS officer Hirdesh Kumar Singh, the then District Collector Jammu, Bashir Ahmed, son of Hoshiar Din of village Kattal Batal, Rajinder Singh, the then Assistant Commissioner Revenue (now retired), R C Mishri, the then Tehsildar Jammu (now retired), Narian Singh, the then Tehsildar (now retired), Amar Singh, the then Naib Tehsildar (now retired), Subash Singh, the then Naib Tehsildar, Mohan Lal, the then Girdawar and Sadiq Ahmed, the then Patwari.
Accordingly, vide Communication No. VO-FIR-15/2014-J-4905-06 dated April 1, 2015, the case was forwarded to General Administration Department for accord of sanction for prosecution of in-service accused public servants by the competent authority as envisaged under Section 6 of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006.
However, the General Administration Department remained slept over the communication of the SVO for nearly one and half year despite the fact that Supreme Court in its judgment in a case titled Dr Subramaniam Swamy Versus Dr Manmohan Singh (2G spectrum scam) delivered on January 31, 2012 had held that authority competent to grant prosecution sanction shall take decision within a period of four months (including one month extended time-frame) failing which sanction shall be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution and the prosecution agency can proceed to file the charge-sheet in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the time-limit.
It was only on the directions of the Division Bench of the State High Court, in a Miscellaneous Petition moved in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Sheikh Mohd Shafi Versus Union of India and Others that General Administration Department woke up from the deep slumber but only to shield the IAS officer. Through the Miscellaneous Petition the indulgence of the High Court was sought for transfer of accused IAS officer Hirdesh Kumar Singh from the present place of posting keeping in view his involvement in Roshni land scam.
In its detailed reply submitted to the High Court, the General Administration Department said, “there was no criminal intent on the part of Hirdesh Kumar Singh to defraud the State exchequer and on the contrary he wanted to be extra sure by ordering re-verification of the status of the land so that no part of the land was transferred illegally”, adding “in these circumstances, there is apparently no criminal intent on the part of the then Deputy Commissioner”.
“As per the established principle of criminal jurisprudence criminal liability doesn’t attach to a person who merely acts bonafidely and in good faith”, the GAD said, adding “the officer simply acted upon the documents placed before him by the co-accused officers”.
“The Government has concluded that no prima-facie case under Section 5(1)(d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 17 of the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 is made out against Hirdesh Kumar”, reads the reply of GAD.
Accordingly, vide Government Order No.18-GAD (Vig) of 2016 dated June 27, 2016, while the sanction for prosecution against other co-accused public servants was granted by the competent authority, no such sanction was granted in case of Hirdesh Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioner Jammu, the GAD said.
However, the GAD said that the officer, at best, can be held responsible for lack of supervision and control, which can be a matter for departmental enquiry. In this way, the GAD has overruled the findings of the premier investigating agency of J&K.
The stand of the GAD is completely in contravention of Supreme Court ruling in much publicised coal scam whereby it has been stated that no prosecution sanction is required in court monitored cases. This landmark judgment was delivered by a Three-Judge Bench of Apex Court comprising Justice R M Lodha, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.
Moreover, the General Administration Department in its reply submitted to the High Court has not mentioned anything about FIR No.6/2014 of Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu wherein Hirdesh Kumar Singh along with another IAS officer Sudhanshu Pandey and several other officers and officials have been held guilty by the State Vigilance Organization.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel