‘Poor acumen or poorer integrity’: HC raps Haryana for misinterpreting rules in HCS selection

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed bewilderment at the stances adopted by “secretary-level” officials. Describing them as the “highest decision making executive authority”, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj censured them for displaying “subpar acumen”.

The assertion came as Justice Bhardwaj set aside the rejection of petitioner Ritu Lather’s candidature for the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) after holding that the interpretation adopted by the state in excluding her was contrary to the statutory mandate.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted there could be one of the three reasons behind stances adopted by the officials — they had no sense of judicial approach and understanding of their own rules; they never cared to examine any case and simply decided the matter as was directed, to appease some interests; or they maliciously misapplied the wrong interpretation to harm an employee.

“Whatever be the cause, it certainly reflects either a poor acumen or a poorer integrity by the highest seat of an executive decision-making authority. Since the petitioner is not alleging any malice or bias in the present case, the same can thus be assumed as a display of subpar acumen, which is not a very comforting reason either,” Justice Bhardwaj added.

Allowing the plea, the court asserted that the respondents failed to refer to any statutory provision, instructions or office order that would operate as a bar against consideration of the petitioner’s claim or justify the communication dated August 13, 2019, by which her name was excluded.

Referring to Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, Justice Bhardwaj asserted it – among other things – required the names of persons to be submitted only if they were clear from the vigilance angle. But the state interpreted this to mean that there should be no vigilance FIR.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted the interpretation was contrary to the plain language of the statute as the rule did not use the expression FIR or its final outcome. “Even though there may not be any FIR formally registered, still a person may not be clear from vigilance angle. At the same time, even though there may be a criminal case registered in which an employee was initially a suspect but is not an accused,” the court stated.

Justice Bhardwaj added that legislative intent was not to link clearance from vigilance angle to the outcome of proceedings initiated by vigilance authorities. “The clearance, hence, prescribed was from ‘vigilance angle’ and not from a ‘court angle,’” the court ruled.

The court, during the course of hearing, was told that the state declined to recommend the petitioner’s name on two grounds, one of which was that her name was mentioned in an FIR registered on June 26, 2015, and a decision on the chargesheet was still pending

Justice Bhardwaj observed State Vigilance Bureau Director had sent a communication on July 18, 2019, to the Chief Secretary, clearly stating that the petitioner had been found innocent and that a challan had been prepared against ten other accused persons. The petitioner had already been cleared in an inquiry report by the DSP in 2016, a finding which remained unrefuted.

The bench also recorded that two officers with pending FIRs involving moral turpitude had been considered by the state on the ground that no vigilance inquiry was conducted against them. Terming this approach irrational, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “This court fails to find any rationality as to how a case of a person against whom FIR has been registered but vigilance angle not inquired into can be on any better footing than a person against whom, despite registration of FIR, the vigilance gives a clear-cut finding of innocence.”

Haryana Tribune