Punjab and Haryana High Court Takes Up Plea Against Haryana Government
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has formally issued notice to the Haryana state government in response to a significant petition filed by a woman employee. The plea challenges the state authorities' repeated refusal to grant the necessary sanction to prosecute several public officials. These officials stand accused of serious offenses including forgery, criminal conspiracy, and abuse of official position.
Justice Sehgal Acts on Employee's Petition
Justice Suvir Sehgal issued the notice after taking cognisance of the petition submitted by Roshan Kumari. Kumari is an employee posted with Haryana's Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. Her petition outlines a distressing narrative of alleged professional sabotage.
She contends that a group of senior and junior officials conspired to fabricate official records and submit false reports. This concerted effort, she alleges, was designed with the explicit intent to derail her career progression and unlawfully stall her promotion within the department.
Allegations of Forgery and Retaliation
According to the detailed writ petition, the alleged misconduct spans a series of calculated acts. These reportedly included:
- The preparation and submission of forged documents.
- The filing of perjured affidavits in official proceedings.
- The creation of misleading official correspondence.
The petition suggests these actions were purportedly undertaken in retaliation for a confidential complaint that Kumari submitted in October 2020. This complaint appears to have triggered a hostile response from within the department's hierarchy.
Legal Hurdles and Judicial Dismissals
In pursuit of justice, Kumari filed three separate criminal complaints before a Gurgaon court between November 2020 and January 2021. These complaints invoked multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code related to forgery, false evidence, and criminal conspiracy.
However, in a major setback, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) dismissed all three complaints in May 2023. The dismissal was based on a critical legal technicality: the absence of mandatory sanction required under the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute public servants.
The Sanction Battle and Departmental Rejections
Following the court's dismissal, Kumari proactively sought the requisite sanction from various state authorities. Her requests were directed to senior officials including the Director General of Food and Civil Supplies and the Additional Chief Secretary of the Education Department.
All these requests were systematically rejected. The rejections were primarily justified by a departmental legal opinion. This opinion asserted that sanction was a discretionary matter and deemed unnecessary in cases where proceedings were initiated by a private individual rather than by the state itself.
Legal Counsel Criticizes Vague Departmental Opinion
Advocate M M Dhonchak, representing the petitioner, presented strong arguments before the High Court. He criticized the legal opinion provided by the Assistant District Attorney of the department, describing it as "vague, self-contradictory, and non-committal."
Dhonchak pointed out that the opinion merely stated sanction "may or may not" be granted, which he argued constituted an abdication of the official's statutory responsibility to provide clear, definitive legal advice.
The counsel further alleged that the opinion reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal law governing the prosecution of public servants. It was contended that the authorities incorrectly relied on the fact that Kumari was under suspension at one point, even though the disciplinary charge-sheets against her were subsequently dropped with all consequential benefits restored.
Court's Previous Direction and Subsequent Refusal
The High Court had previously directed the department to pass a reasoned order on Kumari's representation regarding the sanction. Despite this judicial nudge, the impugned order dated October 15, 2024, once again declined to grant the sanction.
This repeated refusal is the core issue that prompted the filing of the present writ petition. The petition seeks the quashing of the refusal order and a judicial direction to the state authorities to grant the necessary sanction to prosecute the accused officials.
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on May 7, marking the next critical step in this ongoing legal battle over procedural justice and accountability.
