Mandeep Singh vs State of Punjab and others

,,,,,,

The petitioner is a retired IAS officer, who has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to comply with",,,,,,

the direction/order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the Commission.,,,,,,

In brief, one FIR No.12 dated 26.8.2015 was registered by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Mohali under Section 13(1)(e), 13(2)",,,,,,

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468,471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘the IPC’] at",,,,,,

Police Station, V.B Phase-I, Mohali. The text of the FIR read as under:-",,,,,,

“Vigilance Enquiry No.02 dated 29.01.2014 Chandigarh xx was conducted into complaint against Secretary, Public Grivances Redressal &",,,,,,

Pensioners Welfare Department Punjab (now retired), regarding his acquiring property beyond his sources. During enquiry, by fixing check period",,,,,,

from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2014 chart was prepared regarding the income and expenditure of accused Mandeep Singh and his family members wife,,,,,,

Maya Devi and sons Gursharan Deep Singh and Navjot Singh, from which it has been found that during check period the accused his family member",,,,,,

earned total income of Rs.4,79,82,910/- from their known sources, and they spent Rs.7,55,74,250/-. Accused Mandeep Singh and his family members",,,,,,

during check period spent more amount of Rs.2,75,91,340/- as against their income. This expenditure is 57.50% more than their income. Besides this,",,,,,,

Makhan Singh son of Hari Singh resident of Malewal, Tehsil Chamakur Sahib, District Rupnagar, in collusion with accused Mandeep Singh purchased",,,,,,

and sold properties in the names of his family members by money collected through corruption and for depositing and withdrawing amounts in the,,,,,,

accounts of the bank and in the bank he is xx purchaser, whereas in the past Makhan Singh in the year 2001 was allotted 36 kanals of land by the",,,,,,

Punjab Government and now he has about more than 178.5 acres of land and has other properties also. In this way in the hotel Mark Royal, Ashiana",,,,,,

M.D. Avtar Singh son of Sarban Singh resident of Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali with a view to conceal the money collected by",,,,,,

Mandep Singh through corrupt means, has spent money on the construction of this hotel. In this manner accused Mandeep Singh being a public",,,,,,

servant, in collusion with others, with malafide and dishonest intention, by misusing his office, has made different properties by spending more than his",,,,,,

known sources. By doing so, accused Mandeep Singh IAS son of Shri Naginder Singh, Secretary, Public Grievances Redressal & Pensioners Welfare",,,,,,

Department, Punjab (now retired) resident of House No.747-A, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, Makhan Singh son of Hari Singh resident of Malewal, Tehsil",,,,,,

Chamakur Sahib, District Rupnagar, and Avtar Singh son of Sarwan Singh M.D. Hotel Mark Royal Ashiana, resident of Dhakoli Zirakpur District",,,,,,

SAS Nagar, Mohali has committed offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act.â€​",,,,,,

The petitioner was arrested on 27.2.2017 and remained in judicial custody upto 14.3.2017. The investigation in the FIR was completed with the,,,,,,

preparation of the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. on 01.03.2017 which was filed in the Court on 8.3.2017. It is averred that the,,,,,,

petitioner was released on regular bail on 2.06.2017 but while he was in custody, he came to know that the Government of Punjab, Department of",,,,,,

Home Affairs and Justice has issued a notification on 5.4.2017 to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry,,,,,,

Act, 1952 to enquire into such issues based on such reference issued to it. The said notification dated 5.4.2017 is reproduced as under: -",,,,,,

“Government of Punjab,,,,,,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice,,,,,,

(Home-4 Branch),,,,,,

 838/12.4.2017,,,,,,

 Notification,,,,,,

 The 5th day of April,",,,,,,

 2017 No.7/54/2017-3H4/1274,,,,,,

WHEREAS it has come to the notice of the Government that a large number of persons are said to have been involved in allegedly false and baseless,,,,,,

cases/FIRs (First information Report) in the State of Punjab during last 10 years. The maintenance of law and order in the State and the faith of,,,,,,

people Punjab in an unbiased investigation mechanism and the administration of justice is matter of definite public importance.,,,,,,

AND HENCE WHEREAS the Government has considered this issue and decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under Section 11 of the,,,,,,

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into such issue based on the terms of reference issued to it;",,,,,,

AND WHEREAS it has further been decided that such Commission would be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,,,,,,

Justice Mehtab Singh Gill (Retd.) and would also comprise of Mr. B.S. Mehndiratta, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) as its Members;",,,,,,

And whereas having regard to the nature of inquiry contemplated and the alleged circumstances of the case, the Government of Punjab is of the",,,,,,

opinion that all the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 should be made applicable to the said Commission.",,,,,,

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 11 of the said Act, the Government of Punjab hereby constitutes such",,,,,,

Commission of Inquiry on the following terms of reference:-,,,,,,

The Commission would:,,,,,,

a. Inquire into the case where persons are said to have been wrongly implicated in allegedly false and baseless cases/FIRs (First Information Report),,,,,,

in the State of Punjab during last 10 years and submit its report to Government after such inquiry;,,,,,,

b. Recommended to the Government measures to be adopted to ensure that for the future such instances do not recur;,,,,,,

The tenure of the commission would be for an initially period of six months to be extended by Government when so required.,,,,,,

All the provision of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 shall apply to the said Commission.",,,,,,

Dated, Chandigarh the Nirmaljeet Singh Kalsi, IAS 05.04.2017 Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Punjab Department of Home Affairs and",,,,,,

Justiceâ€​,,,,,,

It is averred that the petitioner made a representation/complaint on 18.5.2017 to the said Commission to enquire about his alleged false implication in,,,,,,

Immovable properties purchased out of proceeds of crime: S,,,,,,

Sr. No.,Description of Property,"Value of the

Property as per

registration deed","Mode of payment

of the propert","Name of the

owner","Relation with

Mandeep Singh,

IAS (now Retd.)

s/o Sh. Naginder

Singh",

1.,"Land 20K, 7M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1511 dated 23.11.2011","6,34,936",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh",Son,

2.,"Land at 22 K, 16.5 M Vill,

Malana vide Vasika

No.1520 dated 25.11.2011","7,13,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh",Son,

3,"Land 22 K, 16.5 M Vill,

Malana vide Vasika

No.1858 dated 09.01.2012","7,14,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh",Son,

4,"Land 58 K, at Vill, Malana

vide Vasika No.5590 dated

27.03.2012","17,00,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh",Son,

5.,"Land 24 K, at Vill, Malana

vide Vasika No.1510 dated

23.11.2011","7,50,000",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

6.,"Land 14 K, 5 M at Village

Saidpur vide Vasika

No.1509 dated 23.11.2011","4,45,312",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

7.,"Land 18 K, 15 M at Village

Malana vide Vasika

No.1521 dated 25.11.2011","5,86,000",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

8.,"Land 18 K, 15 M at Village

Malana vide Vasika

No.1859 dated 09.01.2012","5,86,000",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

9.,"Land 10 K 10 M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika No.216

dated 07.05.2012","3,28,200",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

10.,"Land 11K 6M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika No.234

dated 08.05.2012","4,38,000",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

11.,"Land 12K 14M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika No.12

dated 03.04.2013","9,80,000",Cash,Navjot Singh,Son,

12.,"Land 48 K, 2M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1534 dated 28.11.2011","1,02,500",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh",Son,

13.,"Land 51K 6M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1750 dated 26.12.2011","14,75,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

14.,"Land 25K 13 M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1768 dated 28.12.2011","7,38,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

15.,"Land 26K 8.5M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.2094 dated 21.02.2012","4,96,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

16.,"Land 41K 14M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika No.4

dated 18.06.2012","13,04,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

17.,"Land 26K, 6M, 6 Sarsai at

Vill. Malana vide Vasika

No.1158 dated 14.09.2012","4,94,000",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

18.,"Land 32K 8.5M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1200 dated 21.09.2012","10,13,500",Cash,"Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

19.,"Land 25K, 1M at Vill.

Malana vide Vasika

No.1209 dated 25.09.2012","7,83,000","By Cheque

No.2098 74 &

138971","Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

20,"Land 32K at Vill. Malana

vide Vasika No.1484 dated

08.11.2012","12,00,000","By Cheque

No.2098 74 &

138971","Gursharandeep

Singh and Navjot

Singh",Son,

21.,"Land 40K at Vill. Pragpur

vide Vasika No.3796 dated

01.12.2011","10,00,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

22,"Land 25K, 13M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

No.1749 dated 26.12.2011","7,38,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

23.,"Land 21K, 14M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

No.1767 dated 28.12.2011","6,78,200",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

24.,"Land 15K, 10M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

No.1896 dated 12.01.2012","3,50,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

25.,"Land 26K, 4.5 M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

No.2095 dated 21.0.2012","4,92,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

26,"Land 25K 4 Vill. Manala

vide Vasika No.215 dated

27.05.2012","7,82,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

27.,"Land 17K 16M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika No.41

dated 18.06.2012","5,57,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

28.,"Land 21K, 6.5 M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

21.09.2012","6,67,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

29.,"Land 19K 16M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika

No.1465 dated 05.11.2012","7,42,500","By Cheque

No.2098 74 &

138971",Maya Devi,Wife,

30,"Land 20K 5M 3 Sarsai at

Vill. Manala vide Vasika

No.1483 dated 08.11.2012","7,62,000","By Cheque

No.2098 74 &

138971",Maya Devi,Wife,

31.,"Land 18 K 9 M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika No.11

dated 03.04.2013","17,02,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

32.,"Land 16 K 2M at Vill.

Manala vide Vasika No.654

dated 18.7.2013","8,02,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

33.,"Land 2 K 10 M at Vill.

Hasanpur vide Vasika

No.1752 dated 29.08.2013","3,92,000",Cash,Maya Devi,Wife,

,Total Value as per deeds,"2,62,46,148/-

2,62,46,148/-",,,,

2.,"Hotel Marc Royal-

II, Village Dhakoli,

TehsilDerabassi","2 Bigha 12

Biswas land

registered vide

deed No.2748

dated 05.09.2000

, 2 bigha land

registered vide

deed No.2691

dated 31.08.2000

& 2 Bigha 2

Biswas land

registered vide

deed No.2817

dated 08.09.2000

, all land situated

at village Dhakoli,

Distt. Mohali

(Then Distt.

Patiala)","M/s Ashiana Inn

(P) Ltd. now

known as M/s

Ashiana Inn Ltd","Fair market Fair

market Value =

58.36 Value =

58.36 crore

Conservative

value = 49.60

value = 49.60

core Distressed

value = 43.75 =

43.75 crore","M/s Ashiana Inn

Ltd.",

Sr. No,Assets,"Year 1979

(when

Mandeep Singh

was recruited

as PCS

Officer)","Year 1991 to

2014 (Since

Mandeep Singh

was promoted

as IAS

Officer)",Income,"Year 2015

(When he got

retired)",Expenditure

,,"NIL (As per

06 property

returns filed by

Mandeep Singh

from 1990-91

to 1999-2000

annexed at

Annexure R-1)",,"20634962/

20634962/

20634962/-",Annexure R-5,"29231126/-

29231126/-

5) Industrial Shed of one Kanal No. 182/32, Industrial Area, Chandigarh;",,,,,,

6) National Saving Certificates worth Rs.30,000/- as 1/2 share;",,,,,,

7) Rs.16,000/- in the saving Bank Account of my father as ½ share;",,,,,,

8) FDR worth Rs.20,000/- as 1/2 share of Central Bank of India, Sector-18, Chandigarh.",,,,,,

The father of the petitioner had retired as Deputy Secretary. He had also given the details of the land measuring 97 acres 5 kanal 4 marla owned by,,,,,,

his family members. The respondents have attached the income and expenditure chart of the petitioner as Annexure R-5 between check period w.e.f,,,,,,

1.4.1998 to 31.3.2014 to show that as against total income of Rs.4,13,86,471/- the expenditure incurred by the petitioner was Rs.9,55,07,490/-i.e. the",,,,,,

additional expenditure of Rs.5,41,21,019/- without disclosing any source for the same.",,,,,,

Be that as it may, the question arises in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a mandamus for the compliance of the order passed",,,,,,

by the Commission dated 2.8.2017.,,,,,,

It is pertinent to mention that the Commission has not looked into the aforesaid aspects of the matter at all and passed a cryptic order by which it has,,,,,,

been held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair while recommending for re-investigation/further investigation by an,,,,,,

independent agency, not by the Vigilance Bureau but by the Special Investigation Team. It is also observed that this should be done only after taking",,,,,,

permission from the trial Court where the challan has been presented.,,,,,,

According to the counsel for the respondents, the Commission has no jurisdiction to make such recommendations as the jurisdiction conferred upon the",,,,,,

Commission, at the time of making reference, was to enquire into the cases where persons are said to have been wrongly implicated in allegedly false",,,,,,

and baseless cases/FIRs in the State of Punjab during the past 10 years and submit its report to the Government after such enquiry and also to,,,,,,

recommend to the Government measures to be adopted to ensure that in future such instances do not recur.,,,,,,

According to the respondents, the Commission was to make enquiry and submit the enquiry report. It has not been given any jurisdiction to",,,,,,

recommend the reinvestigation or further investigation and also to choose the agency to investigate or not to investigate. It is for the Government to,,,,,,

decide about the same.,,,,,,

A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of,,,,,,

“Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Arun Shourie†2014(12) SCC 344 has categorically held that the Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a,,,,,,

fact finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the course of action to be followed and such Commission is not required to,,,,,,

adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. It has further held that the Government is not bound to accept its,,,,,,

recommendations or act upon its findings.,,,,,,

The Commission at the most could have recommended the Government on the basis of its findings as to how the enquiry has not been fairly conducted,,,,,,

but had no competence to adjudicate upon the issue of re-investigation/further investigation and that too by an independent agency or by SIT but not,,,,,,

by the Vigilance Bureau.,,,,,,

Thus, I am of the considered opinion after going through the record that the learned Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the",,,,,,

impugned order dated 02.8.2017 which does not deserve to be accepted at any cost by the State Government and hence the prayer made by the,,,,,,

petitioner for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to accept the recommendations of the Commission is not made out.,,,,,,

Insofar as the order dated 22.12.2017 is concerned, it was passed for a period of 180 days. The said period counted from the date of the order",,,,,,

appears to have expired and therefore, the prayer in this regard has also become redundant.",,,,,,

No other point has been raised.,,,,,,

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is hardly any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed though without any",,,,,,

order as to costs.,,,,,,