Internal inquiry into ‘out-of-turn’ house allotment pending, HC told

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 12

In a cop versus cops case, a police official has levelled allegations of “gross misuse of discretionary powers” by the UT Director-General of Police (DGP) while allotting government accommodations on an “out-of-turn” basis.

Taking up the matter, Justice Raj Mohan Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has fixed the matter for December first week after observing that an internal inquiry was pending before the Home Department — as submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the UT. As such, it would be just and appropriate to await the final outcome of the inquiry.

The allegations

• The petitioner, Jagjeet Singh, alleged corruption at the instance of the DGP with the help of Avtar Singh, a retired inspector of the Chandigarh Police.
• He alleged that the DGP had accumulated “amount in crores by such allotment”. He also attached a list of 36 such cases, where houses were allegedly allotted to different persons on an out-of-turn basis.

Describing himself as a public-spirited person, petitioner Jagjeet Singh, through counsel Nitin Sharma, alleged “indifferent attitude” of the respondent, the DGP, while adopting a “pick-and-choose method” in allotting government accommodation.

Sharma contended that the house allotment to UT police employees was done under a standing order dated December 9, 2013, and the procedure for the allotment was described in one of its paragraphs.

The out-of-turn allotment of a house fell under the DGP’s discretionary jurisdiction and such power could be exercised when the allotment was on compassionate grounds or on medical grounds. In addition, the officer could allot police houses on an out-of-turn basis or accept the change request keeping in view the exceptional duties performed by the employee in public interest.

The petitioner also alleged corruption at the instance of the DGP with the help of Avtar Singh, a retired inspector of the Chandigarh Police. He alleged that the DGP had accumulated “amount in crores by such allotment”. He also attached a list of 36 such cases, where houses were allegedly allotted to different persons on an out-of-turn basis.

The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that wrong exercise of discretionary power would not necessarily entail criminal prosecution. However, the issue was pending before the Home Department and there was every likelihood that it may take a decision at the earliest.

The counsel further referred to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inserted vide Act No.16 of 2018. It was contended that the amended provision showed no police officer would conduct any inquiry or probe into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act, where the alleged offence was relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his official function without the approval of the competent authority.