|
|
|
|
|
HC quashes Punjab warehousing corporation chief’s appointment Chandigarh, October 31
“The haste with which his appointment has been processed, while totally neglecting and overlooking the provisions of the statute further cements the assertion of the petitioner that appointment was based upon considerations other than bonafide and not in the interest of corporation…. “The Punjab Advocate-General admitted that the past criminal record and the pending cases against the respondent were not taken into consideration to assess his suitability and eligibility for the appointment…. All this adds up and leads us to the conclusion that appointment cannot be said to be justified in any manner.” Commenting on the alacrity shown in appointing Jain, the Bench added: “The date of resignation from the Congress is December 26, 2012, and on December 27, 2012, he was straightway appointed the Chairman of the corporation by the Chief Minister of Punjab at camp office, Delhi. “As a matter of fact, the processing of the file took place the same day and even the notification, appointing him as the Director and Chairman of the corporation, was issued on the same day i.e. December 27, 2012.” The Bench said the appointment was not in consonance with the law.Changing loyalties Initially, Jain was elected as an MLA on the Congress ticket from Moga. His resignation from the Congress came just a year after he won the election. In the byelection that followed his resignation, he was re-elected on the SAD ticket and retained as the Chairman of the corporation. The importance attached to Jain’s joining the SAD can be gauged from the fact that he was presented before the media soon after joining the party by Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal. 2nd embarrassment The quashing of his appointment comes as the second mortification for the state government in just over a year. In August last year, the SAD-BJP combine’s action of catapulting Harish Rai Dhanda to the Punjab Public Service Commission Chairman’s post had virtually led to the passing of strictures. In a major embarrassment to the coalition, the high court had set aside Dhanda’s appointment after ruling that the decision-making process was shrouded in obscurity and efforts to choose the best were missing. Criminal cases During the hearing of the petition, it surfaced that Jain had used “forged passport dishonestly and fraudulently with a view to cheat the immigration authorities”; and was released on probation by a Delhi Court after he pleaded guilty. It also surfaced that Jain was facing trial in a criminal case under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1955. The court was told that charges had already been framed against Jain in the case pertaining to setting up of an unauthorised colony. In an attempted face-saving exercise, the state government admitted before the high court that the Chief Minister had not applied his mind to ascertain Jain’s antecedents while appointing him the corporation Chairman. The court also witnessed excitement of sorts on the issue of his resignation. An impression was given to the petitioner that Jain had resigned. But, Punjab Advocate-General Ashok Aggarwal later told the court that he had been walking around with Jain’s resignation in his pocket. Aggarwal told the court: “It is in my pocket. It is always in my pocket, as I do not want a public man to face ignominy of an adverse order coming from the high court.” Reactions The Congress termed the developments as “a befitting lesson to turncoats”. PPCC official spokesperson Sukhpal Singh Khaira said the quashing of Jain’s appointment was “a tight slap on the face of the SAD-BJP government”. Blaming the “junior Badal” for engineering unethical and immoral defections, he said the quashing would serve as “an eye-opener to other greedy defectors”.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Taking up a petition by advocate HC Arora challenging Jain’s appointment, Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled: “It cannot be said the assertion of the petitioner that appointment is not based on public interest, but is for extraneous considerations, is without any basis.”