PSIEC scam: HC asks vigilance bureau to complete probe expeditiously
The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal was dealing with a 2020 public interest litigation (PIL) seeking probe; and four petitions filed by officials of PSIEC — Savtej Singh Sandhu, Surinderpal Singh, Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and Amarjeet Singh — who had challenged sanction granted by the managing director of the PSIEC for the probe in February 2024
Chandigarh
The Punjab and Haryana high court has asked the vigilance bureau (VB) to complete probe into the alleged plot allotment scam in Punjab State Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC), a body that the government owns, expeditiously.
It is alleged that PSIEC officials misused their position to get industrial plots allotted to their close relatives and friends, which caused financial loss to the tune of crores to the government. A preliminary probe report of 2018 had indicted a dozen of PSIEC officials, including some senior ones.
The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal was dealing with a 2020 public interest litigation (PIL) seeking probe; and four petitions filed by officials of PSIEC — Savtej Singh Sandhu, Surinderpal Singh, Jaswinder Singh Randhawa and Amarjeet Singh — who had challenged sanction granted by the managing director of the PSIEC for the probe in February 2024.
At least 10 plots worth crores of rupees in Mohali and Amritsar were allegedly allotted to near and dear ones of PSIEC officials. The 2018 probe also found that on account of waiver only approved by the accused officers in the process of allotment, PSIEC incurred a loss of ₹8.72 crore.
Following preliminary probe by the vigilance bureau in January 2019, the PSIEC was urged to grant approval to investigate under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the VB. Later the same year, the file was put up before then chief minister, who ordered constitution of three-member committee consisting of the managing director, PSIEC; chief executive officer, Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion and managing director, PSIDC. This Committee also concluded that there were various irregularities committed by the officials, however, departmental action can be taken against them while recommending strengthening/revising the allotment policy.
The recommendations were approved by then chief minister. Somehow, criminal proceedings were not initiated. Accordingly, the chief director, VB, conveyed to secretary, department of vigilance, that the file has been closed, but if the department wants the VB to take action, then steps will be taken.
As the issue cropped up time and again during proceedings of the PIL, in February 2024, MD, PSIEC approved probe into the matter, which these officers had challenged also arguing that MD did not apply his mind independently and he acted due to proceedings pending before the high court.
The court, while upholding the MD’s decision said that though departmental proceeding was initiated against two officers, the same does not bar simultaneous initiation of criminal proceedings. “Ultimately, in the larger public interest the competent authority granted approval to investigate as required under Section 17A of the 1988 Act against the officers/officials named therein,” it said adding that in this case, no sanction for prosecution of the officials has been granted.
The MD has only granted approval to the VB to investigate under Section 17A of the PC Act. Pursuant to the approval, FIR has been registered and the investigation is in progress, it said.
“From the bare reading of Section 17A, it is clear that the state government is not required to exhaustively and meticulously consider all the material available with the investigating officer at the time he seeks approval, rather it is only required to analyse and examine whether the opinion formed by the investigating officer that an investigation is justified,” it recorded.