- (1.) HEARD Shri Devendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner and Shri A. K. Sand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) BY our earlier order dated 31-1-2007 we had inter alia called for a report from the Director Vigilance about the details and status of the cases, which are pending for sanction with the State Government, the delays, if any, and the levels at which the delays had been occasioned and the reasons for the delays. We had directed that the said information could be presented in a tabular form. In pursuance of the said order, a supplementary affidavit dated 1-3-2007 has been filed by Shri Diwakar Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, which mentions that till 19- 2-2007, 77 matters as detailed in Annexure SA-1 are pending before the State Government for prosecution sanction against various accused persons. Furthermore, the Director of Vigilance establishment has received a list which shows that 584 cases are pending till 27-2-2007 before the competent authorities of various departments for grant of sanction, which is annexed as Annexure SA-2. We are dismayed on examining the two annexures and are left wondering whether the vigilance department has been created for facilitating the prosecution of public servants engaged in corruption and other criminal misconduct or whether the establishment and the cumbersome machinery for grant of sanction for prosecution of the erring Government servants and the different levels at which the matters can be delayed, has been created for sabotaging and scuttling the prosecution of accused public servants, who are prima facie found involved in offences inter alia under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Annexure SA-1 contains cases where enquiries were conducted as far back as 1995 and where enquiries were concluded by the vigilance establishment and the matters are pending with the State Government for prosecution or other action since 1997 and 1998. Thus, in the case of Satyendra Kumar, Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, the Government Order for vigilance enquiry was dated 2-5- 1995 and the conclusion report was submitted to the State Government on 31-1-1999. In the case of Jai Prakash Agrawal, Junior Clerk, Social Welfare Department, Azamgarh and Ors. , the vigilance enquiry was conducted pursuant to a Government Order dated 8-12-1995 and the conclusion report was submitted to the State Government on 21-3-1997. In the case of Shanker Lal Pandey, Secretary, Bareilly Development Authority and Ors. , the Government Order for vigilance enquiry was dated 10-3-1996 and the conclusion report was submitted to the State Government on 21-3-1997. In the case of Dr. Yashpal Rawal, Medical Officer, PHC, Etah, the Government Order for vigilance enquiry was dated 30-5-1996 and the report submitted to Government on 28-3-1998. There are other cases where the vigilance enquiries have taken 9 or 10 years and now the matters are stuck at the level of the State Government.
(3.) SIMILAR agonizing delays are visible on a perusal of Annexure SA-2, which shows the pendency of matters before the competent authorities in the concerned departments for finally granting sanctions for prosecutions after orders granting previous consents are issued by the vigilance department of the State Government. Thus, in trap case No. 214 of 1980 of Jagdish Saran Srivastava, Basil Baki Navis and Suresh Kumar, Sahayak Basil Baki Navis after enquiry, which took 25 years, the matter is pending before the competent authority of the concerned department. In the case of Nand Lal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanpur in enquiry No. 19 of 1997, the matter is pending before the competent authority for sanction from 13-7-1999. In the case of Indra Prakash Singh, Junior Engineer, World Bank Project, Rural Engineering Service, in CIS Case No. 284 of 1998, the matter is pending before the concerned department from 21-3-2001. In the case of Mohammad Yakub, Divisional Accountant and other accountants and engineers involved in investigation case No. 92 of 1996 relating to Gorakhpur, the matter is pending for sanction since 28-11-2000 before the competent authority. These are just a few illustrative cases, which we have randomly picked up from the list. However, we find that delays appear to be occasioned at several levels. First at the level when the orders are passed for vigilance enquiry or investigation by the State Government after considerable delay. Then a very long time elapses for the conclusion of the enquiry or investigation by the vigilance establishment. Thereafter after the vigilance establishment submits its enquiry/investigation report to the vigilance department of the State Government, the matter remains pending at that level for a long period of time. Thereafter, if the State Government agrees to give previous consent and the matter is forwarded to the competent authority of the concerned department, the matter again languishes for further prolonged periods of time before the competent departmental authorities which must eventually grant the sanction for prosecutions. After that delays can be conceived at the level of filing of charge-sheets and the inordinate slow disposal of trials in these cases.;