CBI urges action against officials for verification, disbursement of pension to ineligible

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 5

Less than a year after the CBI was directed to look into the disbursement of social security pension to the ‘dead’ in Haryana, the premier investigation agency, in its preliminary report submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has recommended criminal action against persons, who verified and sanctioned the disbursement of pension to the ineligible.

Taking up the matter, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj directed the State to examine the report and take necessary steps. The Bench also directed the serving of contempt notice on the Director-General and the Principal Secretary of Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, after observing that the authorities concerned were ‘wanting in appropriate action’ despite lapse of nearly 12 years since the filing of an affidavit in the matter on taking requisite action and recovering the amount.

“Let an affidavit be filed by the respondent/contemnors as to why the proceedings ought not be initiated against them for having failed to perform their obligations and discharge their undertaking as submitted before this Court,” Justice Bhardwaj said.

The Bench was hearing a petition by Rakesh Bains and another petitioner through counsel Pardeep Kumar Rapria.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the CBI in its status report recommended appropriate action against the district social welfare officers for failing to comply with the undertaking. It was disposed of by the High Court in August 2012 on the basis of the affidavit filed by the respondents.

Justice Bhardwaj said that it was evident from the report that a huge amount of money was yet to be recovered.

The CBI, in its preliminary report, had recommended disciplinary action against erring officials for delaying the matters, including the district social and welfare officers concerned.

Justice Bhardwaj said, “It is evident that despite a period of nearly 12 years of the affidavit being filed by the State, the authorities are wanting inappropriate action. The breach on the part of the respondents stems from not only a casual approach, but also reflects the lack of commitment to comply with the undertaking in affidavit filed before this Court.”

Justice Bhardwaj added that the authority in breach of the undertaking filed before the Court was, prima facie, guilty of committing contempt, for which proceedings were required to be initiated. The responsibility would fall on all the persons holding the office as Principal Secretary and Director-General of Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. But as a precursor, contempt notices was required to be served upon the two.