A division bench of the High Court today observed with dismay that observed that there are 216 cases in which chargesheets have not been filed before special judge Anti-Corruption Court Jammu.
Hearing a petition on its own motion through video conferencing, the bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Rajnesh Oswal expressed dismay over “delay” in investigations and filing of charge-sheets in these cases.
The court issued notice on the petition to Home Secretary, Secretary GAD, Director General of Police and Director State Vigilance Bureau.
It observed that Home Secretary, DGP and Director SVB need to answer as to why the investigations in these “old FIRs” alleging serious offences have not been completed and chargesheet presented till date.
The bench sought information indicating the name of the Investigating Officer(s) of the cases, it said the court be apprised of the present status of investigation, and whether there was any system of monitoring of investigation in the FIRs registered.
“Whether there are any administrative instructions for taking action against the Investigating Officers, if they don’t complete investigation within the specified time,” the court asked the authorities.
The court also directed Secretary, GAD to apprise it of the departmental action taken against the government employees involved in corruption matters and the status thereof and if no such action was taken, the reason there for.
The court asked the secretary GAD whether any of the officer or official was placed under suspension on account of his involvement in a case under PC Act and if yes, for how long.
“Whether employees involved in cases for serious offences were granted further promotions and other benefits and at that stage whether the factum of registration of FIR against them for serious offences was part of the note put up for consideration,” asked the court.
“How much of these employees are in service and working at which post and the post on which they were working when the FIR was registered” Court asked the GAD
“Court be also apprised of their present place of posting, if any of these employees have retired from service, whether retiral dues have been paid to them and for the present information be furnished about the cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Prior to issuing the directions the court while dealing with different types cases had noticed that in number of cases employees near to their retirement have approached the court seeing benefits of their entire service.
Some of them, the court observed, had been under suspension for years together but no charge sheet issued to them or the criminal cases registered against were not taken to logical conclusion.