S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in so far as they apply to the public service of the State are ultra vires of the Constitution is the sole question that has been agitated in this writ petition.
(2.) AS is evident, the issue is purely legal and it is, hence unnecessary to advert in detail to the facts. It suffices to mention that Jagjit Singh Petitioner is standing trial under Section 5(1)(d) and (e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the Court of the Special Judge at Jullundur. The charges levelled against him are based on his having allegedly amased wealth and property disproportionate to his known sources of income since 1970 onwards during his tenure as the Chairman, Marketing Committee, Jullundur, Chairman, Block Samiti, Jullundur; Managing Director, Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., Jullundur and as Sarpanch of his village Panchayat. The offices aforesaid come within the ambit of the definition of a public servant encompassed under the Act and consequently the challenge is laid to the applicability of the Central statute to the public services of the State. The relevant parts of the statutory provisions under challenge may first be set down as under: Section 2. Interpretation. - -For the purpose of this Act, "public servant)" means a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty. - -(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: ... (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as Public servant, obtains for himself or for another person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. ... (e) if he or any person on his behalf in possession, or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of the pecuniary recourses or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is plain that a reading of Section 2 aforesaid with Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code would plainly bring the members of the public service of the State within the definition of a "public servant" in the Act. The crore of the argument raised by Shri Sibal on behalf of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid provisions of the Act cannot have any application to the public services of the State of Punjab, because Parliament or Central legislation cannot be intruded into a field which is exclusively preserved for State Legislation. It is contended that only the State of Punjab can legislate with regard to the offences committed by the members of its public service. Reliance for the contention aforesaid is based primarily on Article 246 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that by virtue of Clauses (1) and (3) thereof, Parliament and the State Legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated in list I and list II of the Seventh Schedule, respectively. A reference is then made to entries 41 and 64 of the State List (List II) which are in the following terms: 41. State public services, State Public Service Commission. ... 64. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this List. ... The contention of Shri Sibal is that on a reading of these two entries together, a State Legislature would have exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regard to offences relating to the State public services and the State Public Service Commission. It was submitted that this arena cannot be trespassed into by the Parliamentary legislation.
(3.) BY way of analogy reliance has also been placed on the corresponding entries No. 70 and 93 of the Union List I of the Seventh Schedule. The submission herein again is identical, that on a corn -bind reading of the two, Parliament alone would have the jurisdiction to legislate with regard to all offences pertaining to the Union Public Services, All -India Services; Union Public Service Commission. On these premises, it has been strenuously contended that whilst Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the Union Public Services and All -India Services, similarly, the State Legislatures have an equally exclusive field to legislate with regard to the offences with respect to the States' Public services.;