Introduction:
In the case of Jaiveer Yadav and others v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an FIR and summoning orders against candidates selected in the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) 2004 recruitment, accused of involvement in corruption allegations against the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) Chairman and Members from 2001 to 2004. The case stemmed from an FIR registered in 2005 under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hisar, alleging favoritism and corruption in the selection process. The petitioners, despite being selected, were denied appointment due to the pending investigation. Justice N.S. Shekhawat, presiding over the matter, noted that the petitioners had already been exonerated twice by the highest officers of the State Vigilance Bureau, who had examined their answer sheets and declared them non-tainted. The Court held that once the State had accepted their innocence, it could not take a contradictory stance to prosecute them. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the charge against the petitioners had already been investigated, and the fresh proceedings were an abuse of the judicial process.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Senior Counsel Puneet Bali, representing the petitioners, argued that the State had failed to conclude the inquiry within the stipulated time despite the 2010 order, which directed the completion of the investigation within six months. The delay led the petitioners to file a contempt plea, prompting the High Court to order the State to conclude the probe within three months in June 2011 to facilitate their appointments. Despite this, the process remained inconclusive. The petitioners also cited an RTI application filed by a successful candidate seeking the status of the inquiry. The response revealed that while irregularities were found in the cases of 64 candidates, 38 candidates, including the petitioners, were given a clean chit by the Director of the State Vigilance Bureau. The petitioners contended that their exoneration was final, and the continued prosecution was a violation of their right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners also relied on Ashoo Surenderanath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another (2020), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that if a person is exonerated in departmental proceedings on merits, criminal prosecution on the same facts cannot continue.
On the other hand, the State, represented by DAG Haryana Ms. Sheenu Sura, argued that the investigation had revealed certain irregularities in the selection process. The State maintained that a fresh inquiry was warranted in light of new evidence. It contended that since allegations of favoritism and forgery had been made against the HPSC Chairman and Members, the selected candidates’ roles needed further scrutiny. The prosecution further claimed that even though prior reports from the Vigilance Bureau had exonerated the petitioners, a DSP-level officer had since found discrepancies, necessitating criminal proceedings. The State also sought to justify the delay in the investigation, arguing that the complexity of the case and the involvement of multiple stakeholders prolonged the process.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the submissions and evidence on record, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the FIR and summoning orders, holding that the continued prosecution of the petitioners was untenable. Justice Shekhawat emphasized that the petitioners had already been declared non-tainted by the highest officers of the State Vigilance Bureau after scrutinizing their answer sheets. The Court found that the State had previously recognized the petitioners’ innocence and even offered them selection following an order of the Division Bench in LPA 1168 of 2015 – Apurv and others v. State of Haryana and others, which attained finality. The judge criticized the State’s attempt to prosecute the petitioners despite this finality, terming it an unjustified “somersault.”
The Court also took serious note of the prolonged delay in the investigation, stating that a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented nearly 18 years after the initial FIR, violating the constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial. It held that such an inordinate delay amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, rendering the prosecution unfair and arbitrary. The Court further ruled that once the reports of the Independent Committee of the State Vigilance Bureau had been accepted and the petitioners’ selection confirmed, a prosecution based on a DSP-level officer’s findings could not be allowed to continue. Citing Ashoo Surenderanath Tewari, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when a person has already been exonerated in departmental inquiries.
The High Court held that the continuation of proceedings arising from the FIR and summoning orders issued by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and, therefore, quashed them along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.