Punjab and Haryana High Court grants two weeks time to Haryana Government to re-consider its two circulars making it mandatory for officers of Vigilance Bureau to seek permission of Head of Department, Deputy Commissioner, or of Administrative Secretary, before conducting a trap against a corrupt employee: 

A PIL filed by advocate H.C.Arora, challenging circulars dated April 13th, 1972, and further circular dated January 24th, 1990, making it mandatory for officers of Vigilance Bureau to seek permission of Head of Department, Deputy Commissioner, or of Administrative Secretary, before conducting a trap against a corrupt employee, came up for resumed hearing today before a division bench of the HC comprising Chief Justice and Justice Arun Palli.

The HC Bench expressed its prima facie view that the two circulars appeared to be in conflict with the judgment of Supreme Court of India in case of Vineet Narain (1997). in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had categorically held that any provision requiring prior permission of the Government, before conducting a trial on a Government servant would be arbitrary and illegal

The HC Bench expressed its prima facie view that the two circulars appeared to be in conflict with the judgment of Supreme Court of India in case of Vineet Narain (1997). in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had categorically held that any provision requiring prior permission of the Government, before conducting a trial on a Government servant would be arbitrary and illegal.

That in the PIL,, the petitioner had submitted that any such requirement to seek permission of Head of the Department, the Deputy Commissioner or the Administrative Secretary of the Department, as the case be, would protect the corrupt employees, and would frustrate any such trap against the employee, for the purpose of catching hold of such employee while taking bribe.

The HC Bench categorically told the Law Officer of the Haryana Government, that the impugned circulars issued by the Haryana Government are clearly in violation of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Narain (1997) and granted two weeks’ time to the Government of Haryana, to file an affidavit as to whether it still supports the circulars dated April 13, 1972 and further circular dated January 24th 1990, despite the subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Vineet Narain (1997); and (ii) in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (2014).