JOGINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on May 23,2014

JOGINDER PAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SIRANDIP SINGH PANAG V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AMARBIR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) VS. PUNEET KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPTI JHA AND ORS. VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT PANWAR & ORS. VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-251] [REFERRED TO]
PAL VIKRAM RAMESHBHAI VS. CHAIRMAN - RECRUITMENT BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1504] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS VS. SUKANTA KUMAR NANDA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
GOHIL VISHVARAJ HANUBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-230] [REFERRED TO]
KHALEEL AHMED K.R. AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-159] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB BAISHYA : ALOK KUMAR SHARMA : SHEROJIT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA : NCCT [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-463] [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDER KUMAR SANDRA AND ORS. VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN KUMAR DAS VS. BISWAJIT MAJI [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
SRI PRANGOPAL DAS AND 19 OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL VS. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-226] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHA DONGRE D/O SUKHIRAM DONGRE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-8-52] [REFERRED]
AMAN RIZVI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. ASHISH KUMAR AND OTHERS; SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS; HARI NANDAN SINGH AND OTHERS; GEETIKA CHALAL AND ANOTHER; SWATI PADIYAR @ SWATI SHARMA; MOSHAM AND OTHERS; BABLOO AND ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2016-9-68] [REFERRED]
PRAKASH S/O BHAGAJI WANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR SHARMA VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-220] [REFERRED TO]
SANGLUAI NAULAK VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY VS. SUJITH [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
A.KALAIMANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-247] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. SATWINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-241] [REFERRED TO]
PINKI DEVI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
R. VIJIYARAJ VS. D. GAUTHAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH PATEL AND 10 OTHERS; SHIVAM KUMAR NAYAK AND 13 OTHERS; PRAVEEN KUMAR GAUTAM; ANAND MISHRA AND 8 OTHERS; MOHAMMAD SHAMS; SYED AHMAD ALI; KAILASH VISHWAKARMA; SAMRAH AHMAD; RAJESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS; ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
ARABINDA RABHA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-5-154] [REFERRED TO]
C ARAVINDHAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & 4 VS. KAUSTUBHAI DEVANG PANDYA & 8 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-136] [REFERRED]
ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH VS. G. PATTANAIK [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR RANJAN AND ORS. VS. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MEGHALAYA VS. PHIKIRBHA KHARIAH [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR PATHAK VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-134] [REFERRED]
TANNU DAUGHTER VS. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-179] [REFERRED TO]
ALL MEGHALAYA PRIMARY VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2018-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
NAMSINREI PANMEI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI CHINGTHAM VS. MANIPUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-280] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT PANWAR AND ORS. VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J. & K. VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
MERIDALIN KHARLYNGDOH VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
GEETALI DOLEY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-155] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHANT VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH RAO AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-385] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKAR KUMAR & ORS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)One Mr. Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu was the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short, 'PSC') between 1996-2002. During his tenure as the Chairman, some appointments were made in the Executive Class I between 1998-2001, by way of direct recruit as well as by nomination, as provided in the Rules. Appointments of judicial officers were also made in four batches within the same period. On getting tip to the effect that for making such appointments Mr. Sidhu had received bribe from many people, raids were conducted in his house sometime in the year 2002, on more than one occasion. A huge sum of money, i.e., Rs. 16 crores (approximately), was recovered from his custody and from other relatives of Mr. Sidhu. This led to lodging of the First Information Reports (FIRs) against him, leading to criminal prosecution primarily under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In these FIRs, some of the officers of the Executive Branch and Allied Services of the Punjab Civil Service (for short, 'PCS') were also implicated. Smelling rat in the appointments in the PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch, as well as judicial appointments, result sheets of the nominated candidates and the answer sheets of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch were seized. On going through the same, Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab informed the Chief Secretary, Punjab that most of the examinations held during the tenure of Mr. Sidhu were tainted. This led to spate of actions taken by the State Government. In the first instance, the services of all officers in the category of Nominated Executive Officers, who were about to complete their period of probation, were terminated on May 23, 2002. This was done by passing orders of termination simpliciter purporting to be in terms of Rules, i.e., by terminating the probation. Thereafter, vide orders dated August 24, 2002, services of the direct recruits, Executive Class-I and II were terminated by way of dismissal on the premise that criminal prosecution had been launched against Mr. Sidhu. So far as judicial officers are concerned, the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted a Committee to go into the allegations and also the news items appearing in the media alleging that wards of some sitting Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had been favoured by the Chairman of the PSC. The said Committee submitted its report recommending cancellation of all the appointments of the judicial officers who were recruited in four batches from 1998 till 2002. This report was accepted by the Full Court and was sent to the Government. Initially, the Government of Punjab raised a query as to what was the basis for recommendation of cancellation of appointments of the 1998 batch candidates, as selection of that batch was not in question. Another Committee was constituted and on the basis of report, which was approved by the Full Court, recommendation was reiterated. As a consequence, the services of all these judicial officers also came to be terminated.
(2.)All these persons, who services had been terminated, belonging to Executive, Allied Services as well as Judicial Branches, challenged these actions by filing writ petitions in the High Court. We describe hereinbelow the manner in which the cases of Executive and Allied Services Branches were dealt with and the outcome thereof, as in the present case we are concerned with the officers of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch.However, since the judgment rendered by this Court in respect of termination of judicial officers has some bearing on the present case, we shall take note of the outcome of the cases filed by the judicial officers as well.
(3.)Insofar as PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch are concerned, a large number of writ petitions were filed by almost all the officers whose services were terminated; be it direct recruits or nominated officers. The matter was referred to the Full Bench, having regard to the importance of the question of law involved.The Full Bench presided by the then Chief Justice of the High Court and two senior most Judges, after hearing these petitions at length, decided those writ petitions by judgment dated July 07, 2003, which is reported as Amarbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2003 5 SLR 398. By means of this judgment, the Full Bench dismissed all the writ petitions, thereby confirming the action of the State Government terminating the services of all the officers of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch as well as the judicial officers.As per the High Court, the decision of the Government to terminate the services was because of the reason that the entire selection process in respect of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Services Branch was so tainted and vitiated, the Government was left with no alternative but to declare the entire selection as null and void. The case set up by the State of Punjab was that during his tenure as Chairman of PSC from September 1996 to March 26, 2002, Mr. Sidhu completely usurped the powers of the Commission unto himself, to the exclusion of all other members, and manipulated the system for ensuring the selection of those who had paid money or came with the recommendations.It had relied upon the statements of Mr. Jagman Singh, a confident and tout of Mr. Sidhu (who had become approver in the criminal case), who disclosed the modus operandi adopted by Mr. Sidhu. It was pointed out that during the investigation it was revealed that question papers and answer scripts were smuggled out of the headquarters of the PSC.At times, blank answer sheets were given to the prospective candidates and special instructions were given to the examiners towards higher marks to favoured candidates and at the same time less marks were awarded to more meritorious candidates. By accepting the bribes to favour such persons, Mr. Sidhu had amassed assets worth Rs. 22 crores. It was averred that the entire selection process was completely vitiated and it was not possible to separate themeritorious candidates from others and, therefore, a decision was taken to terminate all the appointments.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.