The Punjab and Haryana High Court through an interim order has ordered withdrawal of investigations by ex-CBI officials engaged on a contract basis as Superintendent of Police and Deputy of Superintendent of Police by Haryana Vigilance Bureau, also known as Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). The petition has been filed by IRS officer Dheeraj Garg, a former Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, allegedly involved in a bribery case.

On the State’s contention that the engagement was in exercise of the Executive Powers, the bench observed, “…perusal of the documents appended along with the reply does not show that any such power has been exercised by the competent authority. Further, the rank of Superintendent of Police, in the State of Haryana is assigned in the cadre of All India Services (Indian Police Services) and it is incomprehensible to perceive that appointment at the post of an IPS Cadre is being made on a contractual basis, more so when the State is not competent to make appointment to the substantive post itself”.

The Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj thus observed, “The Police Act does not approve or authorize engagement of a Police Officer on contract basis. Further, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that in relation to the offences arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigation is not to be conducted by an officer below the rank of DSP i.e. a Gazetted Officer. It is still not answered as to how the status of a Gazetted Officer could be conferred on a person who had been engaged on a contract basis under an initial engagement proposal as that of a consultant and as to under what order or capacity could he discharge the functions of an Investigating Officer and to file final reports”.

Accordingly, noting that certain important questions like whether Investigating Officers could be appointed to the Gazetted rank of Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police by way of contract and as to whether they were authorized to conduct investigation in law and file charge-sheet or not which are yet to be determined by the court, the bench issued the following directions: i) The investigation handed over by the State Vigilance Bureau to the persons engaged on contract basis shall henceforth be withdrawn with immediate effect till further orders; and ii) The charge-sheet filed by the said officers as the Investigating Officer shall not be proceeded with any further and the proceedings therein shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Advocate Amandeep Vashisth appeared for the petitioner and Senior DAG Shruti Jain Goyal appeared for Haryana.

The petition challenged the investigation and the proceedings under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7, 7-A and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was contended by the petitioner that the said officers were engaged on contractual basis as consultants to guide the Investigating Officer in the ACB. However, instead of guiding the Investigating Officers, they not only conducted the investigation and filled up the case diary but also filed the final report under Section 173 (8) CrPC.

It was further argued that the by the definition of “Police Officers” under the Haryana Police Act, 2007 or empowered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the said retired police officials could not have conducted the investigation in the matter. Thus, were legally not authorized, competent or empowered to perform the official duties of the Investigating Officer.

However, in response, the Deputy Inspector General, Anti-Corruption Bureau (Hq.) Pankaj Nain in an affidavit submitted a background specifying reasons for engagement and the procedure followed for such engagement and that the engagement had been approved by the Chief Minister.

Considering the averments made by the State, the bench further observed, “The counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not get any satisfactory explanation other than reiterating that the file had been put up at the highest level and had been approved. A pointed query was also raised as to how, in the absence of any statutory power as an Investigating Officer, the same could be exercised and under what authority, an act which is beyond the statutory power could be validated by such approval.

The bench has listed the matter for further consideration on December 16, 2023.

Cause Title: Dheeraj Garg State Of Haryana And Others

Click here to read/download the Order




Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Agatha Shukla