M A I N   N E W S

Tribune Exclusive
Punjab persists with controversial officer as LAC
Maneesh Chhibber
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 2
Notwithstanding its tall claims on transparency and eradication of corruption, the Capt Amarinder Singh Government has been actually shielding an officer of doubtful integrity, even keeping him posted on a highly lucrative post.

Not only this, the officer managed to stage a comeback to the same post just a few years after he was shifted out following an inquiry into his actions.

The officer in question is Mr P.S. Sodhi, Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), PUDA, Mohali.

Affidavits filed by many Anandpur Sahib landowners, whose land was acquired by PUDA, not only accused him of not releasing the full amount of compensation due to them, but also alleged that he sought illegal gratification in order to settle their cases.

Following the complaints, many of them dating as back as November 19-20, 1998, Mr S.C. Aggarwal, the then Chief Administrator (CA), PUDA, ordered an inquiry against the officer. The inquiry was conducted by the then Additional Chief Administrator (ACA), PUDA, Ms Seema Jain.

Thereafter, Mr Sodhi was transferred from the post of LAC.

The setback apparently did not deter him. On August 20, 1999, the Vigilance Bureau (VB) booked Sodhi, then posted as District Revenue Officer, Ropar, and three other officials for fraudulent transfer of shamlat land of Mianpur Changer in Kharar.

As per an affidavit filed in the High Court, during investigation, the Vigilance Bureau found that Sodhi and the three other officials had fraudulently transferred shamlat/panchayat land measuring 129 acres. The cost of the land was pegged at over Rs 3 crore.

But, the government refused to grant sanction to the prosecution of Sodhi in the matter. While one of the other accused died during the period, the other minor officials were duly challaned. The case is pending in the court of Special Judge, Ropar.

On September 25, 2000, Sodhi was booked by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, under various Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

One Ram Rattan, the then Reader to the GA, was also an accused in the same case, which involved acceptance of Rs 7,000 graft by Sodhi and Ram Rattan.

A team of the Vigilance Bureau, which included independent witnesses, caught Sodhi red-handed while accepting the bribe from the complainant. Even the chemical test of the currency notes and the fingers of Sodhi established the fact that he had accepted the money.

But, Sodhi’s powerful connections ensured that the government refused sanction to the Vigilance Bureau to prosecute him. Vide memo number 7/26/2000-4BAA/24745 dated December 2, 2002, the Vigilance Department refused permission to the Vigilance Bureau to present challan against Sodhi. No reason was given as to why sanction was denied.

This, while Sodhi was out of the loop, courtesy his powerful backers, Ram Rattan faced trial. Even he was let off by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in the face of the failure of the prosecution to nail him properly.

Later, the government again posted Sodhi back as LAC where he continues to date.

Not only did the government persist with him, keeping him posted at such a lucrative post, it also took no action against him despite the fact that a report submitted by the Joint Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, in May, 2005 clearly said that ‘‘since a prima facie case of grave/criminal misconduct seems to be established against the LAC Sh. P.S. Sodhi, therefore, it would be plausible to recommend the initiation of legal proceedings against the LAC, to the worthy Chief Secretary, under the relevant provisions of law’’.

The Joint Secretary's report was on a complaint submitted by Mr Jarnail Singh Aulakh to the Chief Secretary. Mr Aulakh had levelled serious charges against the officer.