Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Haryana Indian Forest Service officer under HC scanner – Naresh Kadyan.CHANDIGARH: Alleged financial irregularities and high handedness in the Haryana forest department at the hands of senior IFS officer V K Jhanjharia, has now come under the scanner of Punjab and Haryana high court, which on Friday issued notice to CBI, Union ministry of forest and environment and the officer seeking response on the issue. Jhanjharia is at present posted as conservator forest (west circle Hisar)
The matter came up for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana high court in the wake of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Gurgaon resident, Harinder Dhingra.
The division bench comprising acting Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Alok Singh has also put the Haryana government, its chief conservator (forest) and the state vigilance bureau on notice seeking their response on the contentions raised in the PIL.
Petitioner has sought directions to take cognizance of the financial irregularities and high handedness of V K Jhanjharia in the department and to order CBI probe to investigate into the matter of disproportionate assets, regarding which the vigilance inquiry is pending since April 21, 2011. It was submitted that the state vigilance bureau has not taken any action till date and neither inquiry is concluded in this matter.
He alleged that as per the information received from various sources, the IFS officer has amassed huge properties, which cannot be accounted for and has also indulged in malpractices so much so that he has not only misappropriated the state property but has also embezzled the funds of the state.
He added that he was appointed as the Haryana Forest Services officer in 1980 and promoted to IFS in 1986.
"The salary of a HFS/IFS officer is very moderate and with this salary the Jhanjharia not only raised a family of four, but also acquired huge valuable properties in Punjab (Aboharand Fazilka) in his paternal village, in Rajasthan (Sri Ganganagar) and in Haryana (Hisar and Gurgaon) and besides that also have petrol pumps in the name of his sons, wife and daughter-in-laws," petitioner further alleged.
It was also submitted in the petition that one forest guard namely Sher Singh (who was dismissed by Jhanjharia) had submitted all the documents relating to unaccounted wealth submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in June 2011, in the form of an affidavit. Following that an inquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint but because of Jhanjharia's influence, till date no final report has been submitted and no action has been taken.
Now, the case would come up for further hearing on July 24.
www.oipa.org www.pfaharyana.in
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P No______/2012
Harinder Dhingra S/o Late Sunder Lal Dhingra R/o D 4A/7, DLF
Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Department of Environment and
Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. State of Haryana, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Civil
Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
3. State of Haryana through the Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of
Forest, Mini Secretariat, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
4. Department of Vigilance, Haryana, through its Director, State
Vigilance Bureau, Sector-6, Panchkula.
5. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, Van Bhawan,
Sector 6, Panchkula.
6. Chief Conservator of Forests, Protection-II, Forest Complex,
Gurgaon.
7. Central Bureau of investigation, Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi.
8. Sh. V.K. Jhanjaria, IFS, Conservator of Forests, West, Circle, Forest
Complex, Hisar.
…Respondents
Civil Writ Petition by way of Public interest
litigation under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of any writ,
order or direction including a writ of
mandamus directing the official respondents
to take cognizance of the financial
irregularities and high handedness at the
hands of respondent no.8 in the respondent
department and to further take action in
pursuance to same.
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate into the matter
of disproportionate assets of respondent
regarding which vigilance inquiry no. 2 dated
21.04.2011 is pending and no action has
been taken till date neither the inquiry is
concluded, and other criminal cases
including the case of bungling in DRDA, Jind,
pending against the respondent, in which no
action has been taken till date by the State
of Haryana.
It is further prayed that Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to issue any other writ or
direction as it deems fit in the present
circumstances of the case.
It is further prayed that during the pendency
of the writ petition and subject to the
outcome of the same, this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to direct the official
respondents to restrain respondent no.8
from holding office in any sensitive field
posting, in view of the pending vigilance
enquiry/CBI enquiry.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a RTI activist and has been instrumental in
bringing the state authorities in motion against the irregularities
in different departments. In the instant case , the petitioner is
highlighting the irregularities in the respondent department on
becoming aware about them through newspapers and other
sources including the information received under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.the petitioner being the resident of state of
Haryana and the citizen of India is now approaching this Hon’ble
Court by way of the present Public Interest Litigation invoking the
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
2. That the present petition, as would be dilated in detail
hereinafter, is an eye opener and would bring out the glaring
instances of the financial irregularities and high handedness in
the respondent department especially at the hands of respondent
no.8. That it would come to light that respondent no. 8 has
amassed huge properties which cannot be accounted for and has
also indulged in malpractices so much so that he has not only
misappropriated the state property but has also embezzled the
funds of the state. Before proceeding further it would be
pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.8 was
appointed as Haryana Forest Services officer in the year
1980.Thereafter respondent no. 8 was promoted to the Indian
Forest Service cadre and was allotted the batch of 1986.
3. That at the outset it would be pertinent to highlight the various
instances set out in this petition relating to the
irregularities/misconduct at the respondent no. 8 in the
respondent department, the details of which are given herein
below;
Sr.
No.
Instance/case Source of information
1. Financial irregularities in
DRDA Jind
RTI application dated 13-09-
2011 by Sumant Bhattacharya.
2. Rs. 16 Crore plantation scam
in Jind
RTI application dated
12/05/2010 by Abhay Mishra
3. Jui Mithatlal feeder
plantation scam
RTI application dated
12/04/2010 by Navneet Sharma
4. Disproportionate assets From complainant Sh Sher
Singh
5. Culpable homicide in bhiwani From the family of victim
6. Case of forgery and criminal
intimidation
From the complainant sh
jagdish nehra
7. Case of demand of bribe
from war widow for giving
NOC
From the war widow
8. Benefitting private agency in
case of forest clearance
RTI application by Satish Mishra
4. That to begin with, as per information received under the RTI act
as stated above, in the year 2004-05 in a scheme sanctioned and
initiated by the Central Government by the name of “Haryali”, it
came to light many financial irregularities as well as
embezzlement in the implementation of the said scheme. On
conducting a preliminary inquiry of the said irregularities, the
Financial Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to
Government of Haryana(Rural Development) vide its letter dated
21.06.2007 informed the Financial Commissioner and thePrincipal
Secretary(Forest Department) regarding the irregularities
committed by the respondent no. 8 during the implementation of
the above mentioned scheme. In the said letter it was also setout
that as many as six charges/irregularities were pointed out
against respondent no.6 and it was also stated to take strict
disciplinary action against respondent no.8 and to further recover
the amount spent unauthorizedly by him. A copy of the letter
dated 21.06.2007 is appended as ANNEXURE P-1.
In continuation thereof, Deputy Commissioner Jind vide its letter
dated 03.05.2010after referring to letter dated 21.06.2007
recommended that apart from departmental proceedings against
respondent no.8 criminal proceedings should also be initiated
against him. A copy of the letter dated03.05.2010 is appended as
ANNEXURE P-2.
5. That though even after such strong recommendations regarding
initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against
respondent no. 8 no action was being taken by the respondent
department. Later on, a committee was constituted under the
aegis of the Financial Commissioner(Rural Development) to
examine the financial irregularities and embezzlement in the
implementation of the “Haryali” scheme. In pursuance thereof,
the Financial Commissioner(Rural Development), after a detailed
consideration of the matter yet again vide its letter dated
22.11.2011 wrote to the Financial Commissioner, Forest
Department, to submit an action taken report against respondent
no.8. A copy of the letter dated 22.11.2011 is appended as
ANNEXURE P-3. It would be pertinent to mention here that till
date no action has been taken or even proposed to be taken by
respondent department against respondent no.8 even after
receiving such strong observations as stated in Annexure P-1, P-2
and P-3.
6. The next glaring instance of the irregularities and high
handedness in the respondent department especially at the
hands of respondent no.8 comes to picture in the year 2005-2006
and then from 2008-2009. During this above mentioned period of
four years, respondent no.8 has showed a plantation of Rs 16
Crore in Jind District, working as D.F.O., there, while actually the
area available for plantation was much less.
As per the information obtained under the Right to Information
ACT, 2005 as stated above, the total forest area of Jind District is
around 6900 hectares. Out of the total forest area 1/3rd is covered
by metalled portion of roads, running water course of canals and
railway lines. Thus the actual area for plantation is only 4600
hectares. Furthermore as per the information obtained under
Right to Information, there are already around 3.5 lakh old trees
standing in the forest and around 300 hectare area has been
diverted in past 30 years under Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
Excluding that, the actual area left available for plantation is only
3100 hectares. As per the departmental norms around 25,000/-Rs
are spent per hectare for plantation purposes. A simple
calculation shows that maximum amount for plantation should
not be more than 7.75 Crore but to the utter shock as per the
records obtained through RTI, a total of Rs. 15.5 Crore was spend
only on plantation in the forest area of Jind District during the
relevant period running from year 2005-2006 and 2008-
2009.Even if we take in to account some more expenditure and
add few more hectares of non-forest area available for plantation,
this huge gap of nearly 8 crores is unexplainable. During this
relevant period all the disbursements were made by the then
Divisional Forest Officer(territorial) Shri V.K.Jhanjaria i.e.
respondent no.8. The information obtained under RTI revealing
the land area and total amount spend on plantation during the
above stated period is appended as ANNEXURE P-4.
The respondent no.8 has not only siphoned off money through
this scam but has also caused a great ecological disaster in a
State like Haryana where water table is dangerously receding, by
planting mostly eucalyptus trees(eucalyptus trees are known to
affect the water table drastically) as they are cheaper than the
rest of the species of trees.
Not only this, details of plantation clearly shows that
respondent no.8 has shown more plantation in area than the
actual area by doing overlapping in the same area again and
again in order to justify the extra amount of 8 Crores shown to be
spent on plantation. The details of overlapping of some sample
area, under various schemes during the year 2005-2006 is
appended as ANNEXURE P-5.
7. Another case highlighting the misdeeds of respondent no. 8 can
also be inferred and sustained from the fact that an FIR being FIR
no.454 of 27.10.2009 was registered against the respondent no.
8 under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code wherein respondent
no. 8 was the main accused. As per the information obtained
from the family of victim, a forest guard Mr. Dhanpat was
continuously being harassed by the respondent no. 8 so much so
that respondent no. 8 even withheld his salary for four months
without any justification. In the month of October 2009,
Respondent no. 8 during a field tour in a nursery in Bhiwani
rebuked Mr. Dhanpat and threatened him to dismiss him from the
service. Not only this, respondent no. 8 made him do the work
even when he was ill. When the health of forest guard
deteriorated, respondent no. 8 in complete rashness and
arrogance refused him to leave for the hospital. Later on the
forest guard died on his way to hospital.
Thereafter on a complaint by the son of the forest guard, a
case was registered against respondent no. 8. Since all the
witnesses were the employees of the department, hence the
employee union made a vehement demand before the
Government to get respondent no. 8 transferred immediately to
ensure an impartial investigation but as usual the government
did not pay any heed to their request and as a result the
apprehension of employee union came to be true as almost all
the witnesses turned hostile. A copy of the said FIR is appended
as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition.
8. That as per the information obtained from the complainant Sh.
Sher Singh the next instance would throw some light on the fact
that respondent no.8 has amassed huge properties which cannot
be accounted for and has also indulged in malpractices so much
so that he has misappropriated the State property and also
embezzled the funds of the State. Respondent no.8 started his
career as a moderately paid HFS officer in the year 1980 and
later on in the year 1986 was given the batch of IFS. The salary of
a HFS/IFS officer is very moderate and with this salary the
respondent no. 8 not only raised a family of four but also
acquired huge valuable properties in Punjab (Aboharand Fazilka)
in his paternal village, in Rajasthan(Sri Ganganagar) and in
Haryana(Hisarand Gurgaon) and besides that also have petrol
pumps in the name of his sons, wife and daughter-in-laws. In a
complaint by one forest guard namely Sh. Sher Singh(who was
dismissed by respondent no.8) all the documents relating to
unaccounted property acquired by respondent no.8 were
submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in June 2011, in form of
an affidavit. An inquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint but
as usual because of influence of respondent no. 8, till date no
final report has been submitted and no action has been taken
against respondent no. 8 and an inquiry no. 2 dated 21.04.2011
is still pending. No attempts were made by the State Vigilance
Bureau to search the premises of the respondent, to collect the
evidences, as is normally done by the CBI, in case of complaints
related to disproportionate assets. A copy of the list of
disproportionate assets is appended as ANNEXURE P-7.
9. That another example of respondent no. 8’s unacceptable
behavior as a public servant comes to light from information
obtained under RTI application by Sh. Abhay Mishra. A letter
dated 26.02.10 written by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest in which the respondent no.8 was issued a direction with
regard to the unacceptable behavior of respondent no. 8 in the
capacity of a Government Servant shows the inappropriate
behavior of respondent no. 8.
In the year 2010, in a forest clearance case, respondent
no.8 was repeatedly writing D.O. letters to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Haryana, for refund of money in favour of
a private user agency on one hand and on the other hand, was
doing nothing to get certain amounts from that user agency
deposited into State Exchequer. Irritated with the act of
respondent no. 8, the Chief Principal Conservator of Forest,
Haryana issued a direction vide letter dated 26.02.10 to
respondent no. 8, to behave as a government servant and to
protect the interest of government and not to act as a
representative of user agency. A copy of letter dated 26.04.2010
is appended as ANNEXURE P-8.
10. That another glaring instance highlighting the mis deeds of
respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and sustained from the fact
that an FIR regarding forgery and criminal intimidation was
launched against respondent no. 8. As per information obtained
from the complainant/victim Sh. Jagdish Nehra as mentioned
above it comes to light that a FIR being FIR no.522 of 27.06.2011
was registered against the respondent no. 8 in the year 2011
under section 167/177/192/193/196/200/211/463/469/506
wherein respondent no. 8 was the main accused. Respondent no.
8 was annoyed with the District President of Forest Labour
Association, Mr. Jagdish Nehra because he was continuously
exposing the fake payments made by respondent no. 8. Mr.
Nehra also submitted a complaint against respondent no. 8
regarding fake payments and diversion of government resources
in his own farmhouse at Rawalwas, Hisar. To seek revenge from
Mr. Nehra, respondent no.8 fabricated a story that Mr. Nehra has
demanded some money from one farmer namely Lilu Ram, but on
checking the records it was found that the said farmer died long
way back.
To bring the ill deeds of respondent no.8 to justice, Mr. Jagdish
Nehra approached court and on direction of court a FIR was
registered against respondent no. 8. Court also ordered the police
to submit an investigation report by 04.11.2011, but again
respondent no. 8 owing to his political links managed to influence
the investigation and that investigation report is still pending till
date. A copy of FIR dated 27.06.2011 is appended as ANNEXURE
P-9.
11. Another instance highlighting the highhandedness of
respondent no.8 is from the fact that High Court took cognizance
in CWP No. 23492 of 2011 and issued notice to respondent no.8
In a Jui-Mithathal feeder plantation scam of Hisar respondent no.
8 was found guilty in an inquiry conducted by the central
government in September-December, 2010, but state
government showed total inaction and there was no step taken in
pursuance to Central Government’s report. Ultimately the matter
came through a PIL in November, 2010 before this Hon’ble Court
and a Vigilance Inquiry was ordered to be concluded against
respondent no.8 at the earliest. However, respondent no. 8 being
the blue eyed boy of state politics managed to keep Vigilance
Inquiry pending against him. Later on another PIL was filed in this
Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue a
notice of motion to respondent no.8 and Vigilance Bureau. The
case is pending for proper adjudication before this court.
12. That another case highlighting the bad influence of
respondent no. 8 in his department is of illegal suspension of a
Forest Officer Sh. PrithviRaj by him because the Sh. PrithviRaj had
earlier lodged an FIR against his protégé range officer, Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, (who had embezzled government money). The
respondent no. 8 not only managed to get Sh. PrithviRaj
suspended but also pressurized him to withdraw the said FIR. This
Hon’ble Court took cognizance of the case and the said orders
were immediately stayed and notice was issued to respondent
no.8 in person. The matter is sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court
and pending for final adjudication.
13. That as per the information obtained from media news and
from the victim as stated above another instance of
highhandedness and gross insensitivity of respondent no. 8
comes to light from the fact that a widow of a Kargil Martyr has
accused respondent no. 8 for demanding illegal money in return
for clearing her case of ‘No Objection Certificate’. A news was
published in a local newspaper dated 21.02.2012 which
highlighted the misdeeds of respondent no. 8. A widow namely
Ms. Rekha Devi was made to run from one pillar to another in
order to get a NOC for starting a petrol pump which was allotted
to her under the scheme of allotment of petrol pumps to the
widows of Kargil martyrs. When the widow of martyr refused to
fulfill illegal demand of respondent no. 8, she was refused NOC
certificate necessary to start petrol pump even though she
fulfilled all the requirements necessary to get NOC. A copy of the
News paper dated 21.01.12 is appended as ANNEXURE P-10.
14. Aggrieved against such behavior and attitude of
respondent no. 8, the widow of Kargil martyr wrote a letter dated
02.01.2012 to the Prime Minister of India highlighting the
misdeeds of respondent no. 8. A copy of letter dated 02.01.2012
is appended as ANNEXURE P-11. In response to her letter, the
Prime Minister’s office wrote a letter dated 24.01.2012to the
Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana for taking appropriate
action in the said case. A copy of letter dated 24.01.2012 is
appended as ANNEXURE P-12. However, till this date no action
could have been taken against the respondent no. 8.
15. That aggrieved against such irregularities and in
action at the hands of respondents especially respondent no. 8,
the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of present
Public Interest Litigation for the redressal of grievances in the
interest of public.
16. That at the outset it is submitted that, as enumerated
above, a very sorry state of affairs in the respondent department
are evident. The irregularities in the respondent department are
writ large and it cannot be believed that the official respondents
were unaware of the same. Despite this the respondents have
not even cared to take any action against the defaulting officials
including, but not limited to respondent no. 8. Therefore on this
short ground alone the present petition deserves to succeed.
17. That it is further submitted that, as has been dilated in the
facts above, respondent no. 8 does not have a clean past and his
constantly under the cloud since his appointment. There have
been a number of cases of irregularities including financial
irregularities against him and the glaring aspect of the same is
that a vigilance enquiry has been marked against him which is
pending and numerous FIR’s were also registered against him.
Such being the control and highhandedness of respondent no.8 is
evident from the fact that respondent no. 8 has managed one of
the FIR’s against him in which the witnesses turned hostile and
more so from the fact that the vigilance enquiry is pending
against him since long and the same has not been concluded and
finalized.
18. That following substantial questions of law arise in this
writ petition for the kind consideration by this Hon’ble Court;-
(A) Whether the inaction of respondent
department against various irregularities
including financial irregularities by
respondent no. 8 is arbitrary, illegal and
against public interest?
(B) Whether the continuation in service of such
corrupt public servant is against public
interest?
(C) Whether the respondents are liable to
conclude the pending vigilance enquiry
against respondent no.8 at the earliest?
(D) Whether CBI enquiry should be initiated to
look into the irregularities committed in the
respondent department?
(E) Whether the petitioner is liable to the relief
as sought in this petition?
19. That there is no appeal/revision against the
action of the respondents. Hence the petitioner has no other
option but to approach this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of
their grievance except by way of present writ petition under
Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India.
20. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ
either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India for the same cause of action.
21. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to issue;
(i) any writ, order or direction including
a writ of mandamus directing the
official respondents to take
cognizance of the financial
irregularities and high handedness
at the hands of respondent no.8 in
the respondent department and to
further take action in pursuance to
same.
(ii) It is further prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to issue a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing
the Central Bureau of Investigation
to investigate into the matter of
disproportionate assets of
respondent regarding which
vigilance inquiry no. 2 dated
21.04.2011 is pending and no action
has been taken till date neither the
inquiry is concluded, and other
criminal cases including the case of
bungling in DRDA, Jind, pending
against the respondent, in which no
action has been taken till date by
the State of Haryana.
(iii) It is further prayed that Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to issue any
other writ or direction as it deems fit
in the present circumstances of the
case.
(iv) It is further prayed that during the
pendency of the writ petition and
subject to the outcome of the same,
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
direct the official respondents to
restrain respondent no.8 from
holding office in any sensitive field
posting, in view of the pending
vigilance enquiry/CBI inquiry.
(v) Advance notices to the respondents
may kindly be dispensed with;
(vi) Certified copies of annexures may
kindly be exempted;
(vii) Cost of the petition be awarded in
favour of the petitioner and against
the respondents.
Chandigarh
Dated: 10.05.2012 Petitioner
Through
(D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh)
Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
Verification;
Verified that the contents of above writ petition from paras 1 to
, and are true and correct to my knowledge; contents of para are
believed to be true and correct and as per the legal advice of my
counsel; no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated: 10.05.2012 Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGRH
C.W.P.No.________/2012
Harinder Dhingra ....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
The petitioner is a RTI activist and has been
instrumental in bringing the state
authorities in motion against the
irregularities in different departments. In
the instant case, the petitioner is
highlighting the irregularities in the
respondent department on becoming aware
about them through newspapers and other
sources including the information received
under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The present petition, would bring out the
glaring instances of the financial
irregularities and high handedness in the
respondent department especially at the
hands of respondent no.8. That it would
come to light that respondent no. 8 has
amassed huge properties which cannot be
accounted for and has also indulged in
malpractices so much so that he has not
only misappropriated the state property but
has also embezzled the funds of the state.
In the year 2004-05 in a scheme
sanctioned and initiated by the Central
Government by the name of “Haryali”, it
came to light many financial irregularities
as well as embezzlement in the
implementation of the said scheme. On
conducting a preliminary inquiry of the said
irregularities, the Financial Commissioner
and the Principal Secretary to Government
of Haryana(Rural Development) vide its
letter dated 21.06.2007 informed the
Financial Commissioner and thePrincipal
Secretary(Forest Department) regarding
the irregularities committed by the
respondent no. 8 during the
implementation of the above mentioned
scheme.
Deputy Commissioner Jind vide its letter
dated 03.05.2010after referring to letter
dated 21.06.2007 recommended that apart
from departmental proceedings against
respondent no.8 criminal proceedings
should also be initiated against him.
Later on, a committee was constituted
under the aegis of the Financial
Commissioner(Rural Development) to
examine the financial irregularities and
embezzlement in the implementation of the
“Haryali” scheme. In pursuance thereof,
the Financial Commissioner(Rural
Development), vide its letter dated
22.11.2011 wrote to the Financial
Commissioner, Forest Department, to
submit an action taken report against
respondent no.8.
During the year 2005-2006 and then from
2008-2009, respondent no.8 has showed a
plantation of Rs 16 Crore in Jind District,
working as D.F.O., there, while actually the
area available for plantation was much less.
Another case highlighting the misdeeds of
respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and
sustained from the fact that an FIR being
FIR no.454 of 27.10.2009 was registered
against the respondent no. 8 under section
304-A of Indian Penal Code wherein
respondent no. 8 was the main accused.
In the month of October 2009, Respondent
no. 8 during a field tour in a nursery in
Bhiwani rebuked Mr. Dhanpat and
threatened him to dismiss him from the
service. Not only this, respondent no. 8
made him do the work even when he was
ill. When the health of forest guard
deteriorated, respondent no. 8 in complete
rashness and arrogance refused him to
leave for the hospital. Later on the forest
guard died on his way to hospital.Since all
the witnesses were the employees of the
department, almost all the witnesses
turned hostile.
The next instance would throw some light
on the fact that respondent no.8 has
amassed huge properties which cannot be
accounted for. The salary of a HFS/IFS
officer is very moderate and with this salary
the respondent no. 8 not only raised a
family of four but also acquired huge
valuable properties in Punjab, Rajasthan
and in Haryana and besides that also have
petrol pumps in the name of his sons, wife
and daughter-in-laws. In a complaint by one
forest guard namely Sh. Sher Singh all the
documents relating to unaccounted
property acquired by respondent no.8 were
submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in
June 2011. An inquiry was initiated on the
basis of complaint but as usual because of
influence of respondent no. 8, till date no
final report has been submitted and an
inquiry no. 2 dated 21.04.2011 is still
pending.
In the year 2010, in a forest clearance
case, respondent no.8 was repeatedly
writing D.O. letters to the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Haryana, for refund
of money in favour of a private user agency
on one hand and on the other hand, was
doing nothing to get certain amounts from
that user agency deposited into State
Exchequer. The Chief Principal Conservator
of Forest, Haryana issued a to respondent
no. 8, to behave as a government servant
and to protect the interest of government
and not to act as a representative of user
agency.
Another glaring instance highlighting the
mis deeds of respondent no. 8 can also be
inferred and sustained from the fact that an
FIR regarding forgery and criminal
intimidation was launched against
respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 8 was
annoyed with the District President of
Forest Labour Association, Mr. Jagdish
Nehra because he was continuously
exposing the fake payments made by
respondent no. 8. To seek revenge from Mr.
Nehra, respondent no.8 fabricated a story
that Mr. Nehra has demanded some money
from one farmer namely Lilu Ram, but on
checking the records it was found that the
said farmer died long way back.
Mr. Jagdish Nehra approached court and on
direction of court a FIR was registered
against respondent no. 8. Court also
ordered the police to submit an
investigation report by 04.11.2011, but
again respondent no. 8 owing to his
political links managed to influence the
investigation and that investigation report
is still pending till date.
In a Jui-Mithathal feeder plantation scam of
Hisar respondent no. 8 was found guilty in
an inquiry conducted by the central
government in September-December,
2010, but state government showed total
inaction. Ultimately the matter came
through a PIL in November, 2010 before
this Hon’ble Court and a Vigilance Inquiry
was ordered to be concluded against
respondent no.8 at the earliest. However,
respondent no. 8 being the blue eyed boy
of state politics managed to keep Vigilance
Inquiry pending against him. Later on
another PIL was filed in this Hon’ble Court
and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue
a notice of motion to respondent no.8 and
Vigilance Bureau. The case is pending for
proper adjudication before this court.
Another case highlighting the bad
influence of respondent no. 8 in his
department is of illegal suspension of a
Forest Officer Sh. PrithviRaj by him because
Sh. PrithviRaj had earlier lodged an FIR
against his protégé range officer, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, (who had embezzled
government money). This Hon’ble Court
took cognizance of the case and the said
orders were immediately stayed and notice
was issued to respondent no.8 in person.
The matter is sub-judice before this Hon’ble
Court and pending for final adjudication.
Another instance of highhandedness and
gross insensitivity of respondent no. 8
comes to light from the fact that a widow of
a Kargil Martyr has accused respondent no.
8 for demanding illegal money in return for
clearing her case of ‘No Objection
Certificate’. A widow namely Ms. Rekha
Devi was made to run from one pillar to
another in order to get a NOC for starting a
petrol pump which was allotted to her
under the scheme of allotment of petrol
pumps to the widows of Kargil martyrs but,
she was refused NOC certificate.
Aggrieved against such attitude of
respondent no. 8, the widow of Kargil
martyr wrote a letter dated 02.01.2012 to
the Prime Minister of India.In response the
Prime Minister’s office wrote a letter dated
24.01.2012 to the Chief Secretary of
Government of Haryana for taking
appropriate action in the said case.
However, till this date no action could have
been taken against the respondent no. 8.
ChandigarhDated:10.5.12
(D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh)Advocates
Counsel for the PetitionerIN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.________/2012
Harinder Dhingra ..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Chandigarh
Dated:10.5.12
(D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh)
Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.______of 2012
Harinder Dhingra ..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
I N D E X
Sr. No Description Dated Pages Amount1. List of Events 10.5.12 1-82. Civil Writ Petition 10.5.12 9-263. Affidavit in support 10.5.12 27-284. Annexure P-1(Letter) 21.06.07 29-355. Annexure P-2(Letter) 03.05.10 36-376. Annexure P-3(Letter) 22.11.11 38-397. Annexure P-4(RTI information) 14.05.10 40-428. Annexure P-5(RTI information) 439. Annexure P-6(FIR) 27.10.09 44-4710 Annexure P-7(List) June’11 4811. Annexure P-8(Letter) 26.04.10 49-5012. Annexure P-9(FIR) 27.06.11 51-5713. Annexure P-10(News Paper) 21.01.12 58-5914. Annexure P-11(Letter) 02.01.12 60-6315. Annexure P-12(Letter) 24.01.12 6415. Power of Attorney 01.05.12 65
Total Amount
1: The main law points involved in this writ petition are at page no. para No.
2:Constitution of India
3:Any other case:Nil
4:Any caveat received:NO
Chandigarh
Dated:10.05.2012(D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh)
Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.________/2012
Harinder Dhingra ..Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
Affidavit of Harinder Dhingra S/o Late Sunder Lal
Dhingra R/o D 4A/7, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
****
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under;
1. That the petitioner submits that there is no personal interest
of petitioner involved in this petition.
2. That the above said writ petition is being filed which is likely
to succeed inter alia on the grounds mentioned therein.
3. That the contents of above writ petition from paras to , and
are true and correct to my knowledge; contents of para are
believed to be true and correct as per the legal advice of my
counsel; no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed
therein.
4. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ either in this
Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.
5. That there is no appeal/statutory revision lies against the
action of the respondents.
Chandigarh
Dated:10.05.12 Deponent
Verification;
Verified that the contents of above affidavit read over to me and
found to be true and correct to my knowledge; no part of it is
false and nothing has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated:10.05.12Deponent
