RAHUL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Rahul Gupta was candidate for the post of PCS (Executive Branch) and the selection made by Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') was in question as certain allegations of acceptance of bribe for selecting certain candidates were made against Mr. Ravi Inderpal Singh Sidhu, Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. It was alleged that he had taken huge sum of money from different candidates as illegal gratification through his conduit. The allegation against present petitioner was that he was appointed being the son of one of the Member of the Commission, namely, TC Gupta as his marks in subject Punjabi were increased by giving undue benefit to him. FIR was registered and investigation was conducted by Balkar Singh Sidhu, SP, Vigilance Bureau, Phase-II, Flying Squad-II. In the investigation conducted by Balkar Singh Sidhu, the petitioner was not found to be involved as it was found that no bribe was paid by him and cancellation report was filed. On the basis of supplementary statements of Randhir @ Dheera and Jagman, supplementary challan was presented. It was mentioned in the supplementary statements that the father of the petitioner asked for favour from the Chairman of the Commission for increasing marks in Punjabi paper and marks were increased from 46 to 67 as there were cuttings in the answer sheets and the same was proved from CFSL reports. In the investigation, it was found that marks of petitioner- Rahul Gupta were increased in Punjabi exam from 46 to 67 and cutting was made to increase the same. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against accused persons including the present petitioner. An application was moved by the petitioner and others for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on the ground that during investigation nothing came out against him as to any bribe was given for his appointment. Only an over writing/cutting was found in his paper of Punjabi, which was made by the Examiner and the same was without any mala fide. It was also the ground that as per report of Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, there was no specific finding against the petitioner and no intention was there to file challan against him. Only on the basis of supplementary challan dated 5.4.2010 filed against the petitioner and 21 persons, he has been found to be involved in the case which was after a gap of eight years that too was only on the basis of statement of Randhir Singh Dhira as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.2.2010, wherein, it was stated that the chairman of the Commission Mr. Ravi Sidhu once told him that father of the petitioner, namely, TC Gupta was asking him to appoint his son in the PCS (Executive Branch). It was also mentioned in the application that it was done only on the basis of hear say evidence, which was not admissible and the petitioner has falsely been implicated. Reply of the application was filed and ultimately the same was dismissed by Judge Special Court, Patiala vide its order dated 15.2.2014. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge order dated 15.2.2014, whereby, his application for discharge has been dismissed as well as to quash two supplementary challans dated 5.4.2010 and 15.2.2011 and also FIR No. 65 dated 5.9.2002 registered under Sections 8,12,13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala and other proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been implicated after much delay, whereas, no offence is made out against him. He has been implicated on the basis of supplementary challan, whereas, in the earlier investigation no case was made against him. Earlier his name was placed in column No.2 and untraced report was also submitted by the investigating agency on 26.7.2012. Learned senior counsel further contends that the petitioner has been made accused only on the ground that some cuttings were found in the paper of Punjabi and his marks have been increased, whereas, the examiner has put her initials because there was a difference in totalling of the marks. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case as his father was member of the Commission. Learned senior counsel also contends that had the marks be not recalculated then also the petitioner was bound to be selected keeping in view the merit of the last candidate as there would not have been much difference in case the marks were not increased. No allegations are there that any favour was done for his selection or any bribe was paid. Only allegation is that some cuttings were there on the answer sheet, which have already been authenticated by the examiner by putting her initials near the cuttings. It is also the contention of learned senior counsel that from report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the altercation in the marks were found to be done by the examiner herself. Cuttings were not only there in the answer sheet of the petitioner alone but similar cuttings were there in the answer sheets of other candidates as well. As per investigation report prepared by SSP Balkar Singh no offence was found to be committed with regard to selection of the petitioner or over-writing in the answer sheet. All the candidates who cleared their test in the year 1998 were given liberty to appear in the examination in the year 2003. The petitioner not only cleared the re-conduct examination but also improved his rank from being at number 9 in the 1998 examination to 7th in re-conduct examination. Even his marks improved in the Punjabi paper as he got 72 marks whereas in the earlier examination his score was 67. The petitioner has also appeared in IAS examination conducted by UPSC and in the first attempt itself he cleared his main examination and secured 204 marks out of 300, which were among the best scores. Learned senior counsel also submits that the matter was further investigated by State Vigilance Bureau and the petitioner was found innocent and thereafter after verifying from all corners an untraced report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. by putting petitioner in column No.2 was filed. The matter has finally been decided by the Constitutional Bench comprising of 5 Judges on 31.5.2013 and the stand of the State was that nothing was found against the present petitioner and in this regard an affidavit was also filed. The five Judges Bench has disposed of writ petition by deciding that first selection conducted by PPSC is beyond any salvation and State Government has taken decision to give seniority to all candidates who had cleared the second examination and that seniority is from first joining on the basis of first examination. It has been observed by the said Bench that the statement of Randhir Singh Dhira is hearsay and is hence inadmissible. Learned senior counsel also submits that all these aspects have not been taken into consideration while dismissing the application of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1972 AIR(SC) 545, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, 1979 AIR(SC) 366, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 1962, Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 AIR(SC) 3258, Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 2 SCC 135, Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 11 SCC 356as well as Full Bench judgment of this Court in Amarbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 3 SCT 676, in support of his contentions.