M A I N   N E W S

SC clean chit for Khanna
Probe against 2 IAS officers justified
From Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, Nov 30 — A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Mr Justice M.J. Rao and Mr Justice U.C. Banerjee today dismissed the appeals of the Punjab Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal and the state government against a judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court giving a clean chit to the former Punjab Chief Secretary, Mr V K Khanna in recommending investigation and follow-up action by the CBI against two senior state IAS officers.

“On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot but give concurrence to the findings of the High Court, the judgements and precedents cited by the appellants are not relevant for the facts and circumstances of the case,” the judge ruled while upholding the High Court verdict which observed that Mr Khanna deserved a pat and not prosecution for his action.

The High Court had also passed strictures against two senior officers of the government and the Chief Minister Badal and quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the state government against Mr Khanna.

On February 7, 1997, on the written orders of the then Chief Minister, Mrs Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Mr Khanna (then Chief Secretary) referred to the CBI, the case of Bikramjit Singh (IAS) for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and the case of I.S. Bindra (also IAS) for transferring 20 acres of public land to the Punjab Cricket Association of which he was the President.

The CBI in its interim report to the High Court submitted that Mr Bikramjit Singh had amassed Rs 135 lakh and that Mr Bindra had transferred the land illegally. In the meanwhile the Punjab Government launched disciplinary proceedings against Mr Khanna and tried to block the investigation that was being carried out by the CBI against the two officers.

Even as the cases against Mr Bikramjit Singh and Mr Bindra are pending disposal, the apex court’s findings have come as a shot in the arm for Mr Khanna.

“There was no malafide on the part of Mr Khanna when he had recommended the CBI to investigate into the disproportionate assets of Mr Bikramjit Singh and the transfer of about 20 acres of prime public land in Mohali to the Punjab Cricket Association by Mr I.S. Bindra, then Sports Secretary,” the court observed.

These findings of the High Court were affirmed by the apex court today.

Incidentally, Mr Khanna is the senior-most serving IAS officer in the country. He was next in seniority to Mr Prabhat Kumar, Former Cabinet Secretary. He is now Chairman of the Inland Waterways Authority of India.

CHANDIGARH(TNS): Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice N.C. Khichi, had in their order of December 21, 1998, observed that the ‘‘writ court has the power and duty to reach injustice wherever it occurs. Silence is not always the right option. In any case, it would not be right to remain silent when the things are ill done.

‘‘In the present case, we are satisfied that failure to intervene would lead to failure of justice. We, therefore, feel constrained to interrupt the proceedings at this stage. In our opinion, the proceedings against the petitioner had not been initiated bonafide. The continuation of the proceedings shall not promote public but private interest. If at all, it might deter other members of the service from taking decisions. This shall not be right,’’ the order said.

Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice Khichi further observed that duty was like a debt which must be discharged without delay or demur and the petitioner had done so. The impending change in the government had not deterred him from doing his duty. Even the fear of a possible censure had not diverted him from the righteous path.

‘‘For this, the petitioner deserved a pat and not persecution. We are satisfied that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned charge sheet against the petitioner is like using a hammer to swat a fly on its forehead,’’ the order said.

It further said the ‘‘respondents seem to have an eagle’s eye to see faults in others. They need to have a look at themselves before pointing an accusing finger at the petitioner. Had they been faultless, they would not have been so annoyed with him.’’

‘‘The respondents have not followed the basic rules and norms for a just and fair inquiry. They have violated the minimum guarantee that the officer shall be given an effective opportunity to submit a reply to the charge sheet and that his reply shall be objectively considered before a decision to hold a regular inquiry is taken. The Chief Minister had made an announcement regarding the decision to appoint an inquiry officer even before the period for the submission of the reply granted to the petitioner had expired.

‘‘The procedure of ‘in camera’ proceedings as adopted by the inquiry officer was wholly unfair. What was there to hide? Only dark deeds need the cover of darkness. Otherwise sunlight is the best antiseptic. Transparency is the best guard against all allegations.

‘‘There was a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, as he was not given copies of the documents or permission to inspect the record. The action was violative of the principles of natural justice,’’ the order of Mr Justice Gupta and Mr Justice Khichi said.