High Court describes as ‘unusual’ request by Janjua’s counsel to withdraw from case

Chandigarh, August 24

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has described as “unusual” a request by a senior counsel appearing for former IAS officer Vijay Kumar Janjua to withdraw from a case at a stage “especially when the arguments have been addressed on several occasions”.

The observation came as Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal of the high court reserved verdict on a petition filed by Tulsi Ram Mishra — complainant in the case against Janjua. An FIR was registered on November 9, 2009, at Vigilance Bureau police station, FS-1, at Mohali, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Janjua.

The Punjab Governor accorded sanction for prosecuting the respondent, which was challenged by him. But his was dismissed by the high court on January 24, 2014. The respondent challenged the order by filing an appeal. It, too, was also dismissed on August 11, 2014, while granting liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial court.

Considering an application for discharge filed by the respondent, the trial court noticed that the power of an IAS officer’s removal from service vested with the Centre. But the sanction for prosecuting the respondent/accused vide order dated April 27, 2010, had been accorded by the Punjab Government. The application for discharge was, as such, accepted. The Punjab Government then wrote a letter to the Centre to accord sanction to prosecute the respondent. But subsequently withdrew the request on March 26, 2018.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, Justice Grewal observed written synopsis and judgments in support of the submissions on behalf of respondent-Janjua had been furnished to the court as well as the counsel for the other parties.

“I do not deem it necessary to issue fresh notice to respondent. It has been held by this court in the case of Suresh Kumar versus Daryai and others that it is not necessary for the court to issue fresh notice in all cases where a party is represented by a counsel at one stage, but subsequently such counsel withdraws from the case. As the matter has been heard, the judgment is reserved,” Justice Grewal concluded.