Karamjit Singh vs Union of India and others

Mahesh Grover, J.—In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks directions to be issued to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to entrust the investigation of F.I.R. No. 162 dated 5.9.2009 registered under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C. at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The allegations revolve around the appointment of teachers in the process initiated and undertaken by the Department of Education, U.T.Chandigarh which had advertised 273 posts of Master/Mistress, 235 posts of J.B.T. Teachers and 28 posts of N.I.T. Teachers, totaling 536. The written test was conducted with effect from 12.7.2009 and no criteria for selection was disclosed to the candidates, but eventually the criteria was published in The Hindustan Times on 7.9.2009 indicating that 45 marks had been allocated for written test, 30 marks for educational qualifications, 5 marks for Co-curricular activities, 10 marks for teaching experience and 10 marks for viva-voce.

In the meantime, allegations surfaced that jobs of teachers were being bartered for cash which led to the registration of the F.I.R. in question. Serious allegations were levelled against the D.P.I.(S) Samwartak Singh, one Jolly and Hardev Singh. The F.I.R. was registered on the allegation made by Kamalpreet Kaur who alleged that Hardev Singh had contacted her on 19.8.2009 and represented to her that he had links with the Education Department and could be instrumental in getting her selected as a teacher in lieu of an amount of Rs. 4.25 lacs.

Similarly, a person by the name of Jolly was also involved in this process as a conduit. The matter was investigated initially by the Chandigarh Police and in the investigation, it was established that a person named Jolly had made around 130 calls to Samwartak Singh, D.P.S.(S) and a similar number of calls were received by him from Samwartak Singh. Interestingly, even though notice had been issued to the respondents in this Public Interest Litigation on 9.11.2009 and the Court had summoned the record of investigation of F.I.R. No. 162 dated 5.9.2009 registered under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C. and subsequently appointed Shri R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocated as Amicus Curiae to assist it and before this Court could evaluate the record with the assistance of the Amicus Curiae, a letter was received from one Himmat Singh addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court in a sealed cover indicating that the C.B.I. had conducted a preliminary enquiry literally establishing the case of complainant Kamalpreet Kaur in the said F.I.R., but yet the C.B.I. had made no effort either to register a case or to proceed with the matter further.

The Court then directed that the findings of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the C.B.I. be placed before it in original and further action taken, if any or contemplated, be also, laid before this Court on the next date fixed. This order having been passed on 30.3.2011, the matter progressed further with the C.B.I. taking time repeatedly to comply with these directions. Finally an affidavit dated 19.11.2011 was filed by Ravinder Kush, Inspector, C.B.I. and it was stated in this affidavit that the criteria for selection which was initially advertised on 5.8.2007 stated a particular criteria which was changed on the recommendations made by the Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh vide his approval granted on 28.5.2009 which change was never intimated to the desirous candidates. Even this criteria was subsequently again changed on the approval of Shri Pradeep Mehra, Advisor to the Administrator on 22.72009. The C.B.I. concluded that the selection criteria had been changed arbitrarily and that the changes were not communicated to the applicants. In the affidavit it was further stated that Anti Corruption Branch of the C.B.I. had not conducted any enquiry/investigation into the matter and no statement of witnesses had been recorded even though various aspects of the selection had been gone into including the fact that certain candidates who had more marks, were not called for the interview, while the candidates with lesser marks were called for the same.

In short, the affidavit concluded that the C.B.I. had established irregularities in the selection process and the report was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, U.T.Administration recommending action against the officials/individuals responsible for such lapses and for black-listing the DOEACC (a society entrusted with preparing the computerized result). The report received from the Chief Vigilance Officer, DOEACC confirmed that candidates with lesser marks were called for interview, while the candidates with higher marks were ignored, but the society attributed these lapses to software error. In this affidavit it was further disclosed that the C.B.I. merely recommended re-compilation of the result, but did not recommend any action against the erring officials.

The record of the report submitted by the Chandigarh Police as also the report of the C.B.I. (the existence of which report was disclosed to this Court by a letter received from Himmat Singh) was made available to the Amicus Curiae who gave his conclusion to the Court in a sealed cover.

On a perusal of the record of F.I.R. No. 162 dated 5.9.2009 registered under Sections 420, 120B I.P.C., report of the C.B.I. and its related record and the report of the Amicus Curiae, it becomes evident that even though the C.B.I. in its verification report filed by Inspector Ghunjyal recommended the registration of a case under Sections 120B, 420 I.P.C. and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sanwartak Singh and unknown public servants which report was initially accepted by the S.P., C.B.I. (Shri Amitabh) who while accepting the report recommended registration of a case against Samwartak Singh and unknown public servants, but yet subsequently, the C.B.I. took a complete somersault and diluted its stand by saying that changes were arbitrary, but not criminal, so as to be sufficient to fix criminal conspiracy and that it was not established that candidates who were wrongly called for interview were finally selected and that change of criteria was not motivated.

We find various aspects of the case disturbing and intriguing.

(1) The C.B.I. had been associated with the matter from the very beginning, yet this fact was not disclosed to the Court till the time the enquiry report reached the Court and intimation received from a third person. This is a fact difficult to digest, since the C.B.I. was a party to the proceedings and its silence, therefore, is deafening to say the least.

(2) The C.B.I. was conscious of the fact that the Chandigarh Police has registered the F.I.R. and the allegations therein pertain to the instances of bribe given by some persons to the officers. The C.B.I. does establish in its report the fact that numerous calls were exchanged between the accused in F.I.R. and the then D.P.I.(S) Samwartak Singh, but it chose not to go deeper into this matter by merely accepting the fact that the allegations of bribe have already been looked into by another investigating agency.

(3) The report further acknowledges that Kamalpreet Kaur had been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and the C.B.I. and she had categorically disclosed the fact that one Jolly had told her on 3.9.2009 at Cafe Coffee Day in Sector 30, Chandigarh that during the course of interview, a question would have been asked to her by one of the interview board members as to what does the abbreviated form of NCERT mean and surprisingly, the said question had been asked to her by one of the interview board members and this was the first question which had been put to her. Verification revealed that the said question was indeed put to Kamalpreet Kaur by Samwartak Singh. This aspect has been ignored and not enquired further.

Substantial number of calls between Jolly, Hardev Singh and Samwartak Singh were established during the course of this enquiry by the C.B.I.

(4) This entire report of the C.B.I. was initially kept away from the Court and disclosed accidentally to it which was sought to be wished away by the C.B.I. as being first verification report and not the final word of the senior officer.

Thus sufficient amount of suspicion has been aroused in the mind of the Court indicating a complete cover-up by the C.B.I. and a shoddy investigation conducted by the local police.

We are, thus, convinced that it is a case in which intervention of the Court is necessary to restore the confidence of the people in the justice dispensation system which has been blatantly put to sword by the officials of the Chandigarh Administration who stood to benefit from scuttling the investigation and ironically with the willing hand of the C.B.I. which apparently has not taken its image of being a premier impartial agency, seriously.

Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others 2012 (1) CCC 437 (S.C.), with reference to para-48 of the judgment, to contend that a person against whom an enquiry is sought to be initiated by the order of the Court, necessarily has to be given an opportunity of being heard and that the Court can direct the C.B.I. to investigate only in exceptional cases where the Court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complaint.

We do not understand how the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court enhance the case of the respondent (Samwartak Singh) in any manner, for the simple reason that the factors outlined above in the foregoing paragraphs of this order clearly indicate that it is a case where several high-ups are involved and the impartiality of the investigation has seriously been compromised when despite glaring material available with the investigating agency, the loose ends have not been tied up and even the tighter ends seem to have been loosened.

The Court, therefore, cannot shut its eyes to this unabashed attempt to scuttle justice and therefore, keeping in view the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, and Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , we feel that it is a fit case where the investigation of the case should be got conducted afresh and we thus, entrust the task to the C.B.I., Delhi, keeping in view the fact that the confidence of this Court in the C.B.I., Chandigarh Branch has been eroded somewhat. All the record pertaining to this case which is with the C.B.I. and the record of the Chandigarh Police in this regard shall be seized forthwith by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi.