M A I N   N E W S

A Tribune investigation
Same charges, different treatment
By Yoginder Gupta
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Jan 22 — This is the story of how bureaucrats change the rules of the game with a change of political guards.

It revolves around two IAS officers of the Haryana cadre — Mr J.P.S. Sangwan and Ms Sumita Mishra Singh. Both were Administrators, HUDA, at Faridabad. Both faced similar charges, but have been meted out different treatment.

Mr Sangwan stands suspended and Ms Singh has been let off the hook, merely with a friendly advice of being more careful in future. Ironically, Mr Sangwan played a major role in helping out Ms Singh.

The charges against Ms Singh related to hearing appeals in cases of resumed plots which had been already finalised, attracting strictures by the High Court; reduction in compounding fee and signing orders after the charge had been relinquished.

Mr Sangwan is similarly alleged to have reopened those cases which had been decided by his predecessors. He is also accused of reducing compounding fee.

Another charge against Mr Sangwan, who is related to Mr Krishan Singh Sangwan, BJP MP from Sonepat, is that he accepted a bid for a HUDA property though the bid was much lower than what had been rejected by his predecessor, Mrs G. Anupama. The reserve price of the property was Rs 3.66 crore. The highest bid was for about Rs 4.60 crore but it was rejected by Mrs Anupama.

On reaction Mr Sangwan accepted the bid of about Rs 3.80 crore.

He is also alleged to have violated Government instructions while releasing money for payment of enhanced compensation for land acquired by HUDA.

The then Chief Minister, Mr Bansi Lal, had accepted the advice of the Chief Secretary, Mr Ram S. Verma, that Ms Singh should be charge-sheeted for major penalty. The present Chief Minister, Mr Om Prakash Chautala, too accepted Mr Verma’s suggestion which, however, now was to be lenient with Ms Singh.

Informed sources say Mr Chautala, who trusts his bureaucrat advisers, rather than himself reading voluminous files, remained in the dark, if not misled by those who were supposed to present the entire picture before him. The court judgements were never placed before Mr Chautala, whose professed first priority is to eradicate corruption from the administration.

After Ms Singh was transferred from Faridabad on April 30, 1998, two complaints were received against her, including one by Mr Anil Sabharwal, who was the petitioner in the famous discretionary quota plots case.

Mrs Anupama and the then Chief Administrator, HUDA, Mr P. Raghavendra Rao, prima facie confirmed the allegations on February 10, 1999. HUDA also filed a review petitions before the CTCP in four cases. In three cases Ms Singh’s orders were reversed. Two parties, Messrs G.S. Engineering Works and Messrs Printers Engineering Company, moved the High Court against the orders of the CTCP.

In the G.S. Engineering Works case Mr Justice G.S. Singhvi and Mr Justice Amar Dutt held on May 5, 1999, that the “appellate authority (Ms Singh) had clearly exceeded its brief when it held that the prtitioner should be given another opportunity ... The observations made by the authority ... were clearly misleading and appears to have been made due to extraneous reasons...”

In the printers case Mr Justice Singhvi and Mr Justice M.S. Gill held on May 24, 1999, that the “facts brought on the record in this petition ... show how high ranking officers of HUDA connive with the plot-holders for causing loss to the very public authority which they pretend to serve.

“We do not have the slightest hesitation in approving the view taken by the revisional authority that the Administrator did not have the power and jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner after six years of passing the order of resumption, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and against which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court.

“We are rather surprised by the dare devil attitude exhibited by the officer who not only entertained the second appeal ... but accepted the same deliberately...”

Dismissing the petition the Bench directed the High Court Registry to “send a photostat copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, who may place it before the Chief Minister, so that he may be able to know as to how the officers of HUDA have, for apparently extraneous reasons, passed orders favouring the petitioner. We hope that the learned Chief Minister will take appropriate action so that other officers are discouraged to pass orders which are detrimental to public interest.”

Mr Verma recommended that Ms Singh should be charge-sheeted for major penalty but before that an explanation should be sought from her. Meanwhile, there was a change in the government as well as in the set of officers in HUDA and the Town and Country Planning Department.

In her reply Ms Singh denied that she had dealt with any HUDA file after she relinquished the charge as Administrator. She alleged that a distorted picture had been created with malicious intent to malign her as she had tried to check corrupt practices in HUDA. The dates mentioned on her orders were the dates of despatch and not the dates of pronouncement of orders.

Regarding the hearing of cases which had already been decided, Ms Singh said the HUDA representative did not disclose that the case had been decided either by her predecessor or even by the High Court. In restoring the plots her approach was a “problem solving pragmatic one rather than a clerical one.” Her predecessors too had been hearing cases in similar manner.

She attached photocopies to show how various administrators like Mr Anand Mohan Sharan, Mr R.R. Jowel, Mr S.N. Roy and Mrs Anupama had entertained appeals against the orders of their predecessors and restored the resumed plots.

The very day Ms Singh’s reply was received it was sent to the CTCP and Mr Sangwan for comments. Next day itself Mr Sangwan reported that all actions taken by Ms Singh during her tenure as Administrator were in good faith and in accordance with the practice in vogue. His report was dittoed by the CA, HUDA, as well as the CTCP, notwithstanding the fact that the report of their predecessors was contrary to what they were saying now.

Interestingly, about three months after Mr Sangwan gave a clean chit to Mrs Singh, he himself was placed under suspension on the basis of reports by the IG, CID, and the CTCP.