Haryana Indian Forest Service officer under HC scanner Naresh Kadyan.

CHANDIGARH: Alleged financial irregularities and high handedness in the Haryana forest department at the hands of senior IFS officer V K Jhanjharia, has now come under the scanner of Punjab and Haryana high court, which on Friday issued notice to CBI, Union ministry of forest and environment and the officer seeking response on the issue. Jhanjharia is at present posted as conservator forest (west circle Hisar) The matter came up for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana high court in the wake of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Gurgaon resident, Harinder Dhingra. The division bench comprising acting Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Alok Singh has also put the Haryana government, its chief conservator (forest) and the state vigilance bureau on notice seeking their response on the contentions raised in the PIL. Petitioner has sought directions to take cognizance of the financial irregularities and high handedness of V K Jhanjharia in the department and to order CBI probe to investigate into the matter of disproportionate assets, regarding which the vigilance inquiry is pending since April 21, 2011. It was submitted that the state vigilance bureau has not taken any action till date and neither inquiry is concluded in this matter. He alleged that as per the information received from various sources, the IFS officer has amassed huge properties, which cannot be accounted for and has also indulged in malpractices so much so that he has not only misappropriated the state property but has also embezzled the funds of the state. He added that he was appointed as the Haryana Forest Services officer in 1980 and promoted to IFS in 1986. "The salary of a HFS/IFS officer is very moderate and with this salary the Jhanjharia not only raised a family of four, but also acquired huge valuable properties in Punjab (Aboharand Fazilka) in his paternal village, in Rajasthan (Sri Ganganagar) and in Haryana (Hisar and Gurgaon) and besides that also have petrol pumps in the name of his sons, wife and daughter-in-laws," petitioner further alleged. It was also submitted in the petition that one forest guard namely Sher Singh (who was dismissed by Jhanjharia) had submitted all the documents relating to unaccounted wealth submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in June 2011, in the form of an affidavit. Following that an inquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint but because of Jhanjharia's influence, till date no final report has been submitted and no action has been taken. Now, the case would come up for further hearing on July 24.
www.oipa.org www.pfaharyana.in

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P No______/2012

Harinder Dhingra S/o Late Sunder Lal Dhingra R/o D 4A/7, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. State of Haryana, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh. 3. State of Haryana through the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Forest, Mini Secretariat, Sector-17, Chandigarh. 4. Department of Vigilance, Haryana, through its Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Sector-6, Panchkula. 5. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, Van Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula. 6. Chief Conservator of Forests, Protection-II, Forest Complex, Gurgaon. 7. Central Bureau of investigation, Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

8.

Sh. V.K. Jhanjaria, IFS, Conservator of Forests, West, Circle, Forest Complex, Hisar. Respondents Civil Writ Petition by way of Public interest litigation under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of any writ, order or direction including a writ of

mandamus directing the official respondents to take cognizance of the financial

irregularities and high handedness at the hands of respondent no.8 in the respondent department and to further take action in pursuance to same. It is further prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the matter of disproportionate assets of respondent regarding which vigilance inquiry no. 2 dated 21.04.2011 is pending and no action has been taken till date neither the inquiry is concluded, and other criminal cases

including the case of bungling in DRDA, Jind, pending against the respondent, in which no action has been taken till date by the State of Haryana.

It is further prayed that Honble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ or direction as it deems fit in the present circumstances of the case. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition and subject to the outcome of the same, this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the official

respondents to restrain respondent no.8 from holding office in any sensitive field posting, in view of the pending vigilance enquiry/CBI enquiry.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner is a RTI activist and has been instrumental in bringing the state authorities in motion against the irregularities in different departments. In the instant case , the petitioner is highlighting the irregularities in the respondent department on becoming aware about them through newspapers and other sources including the information received under the Right to

Information Act, 2005.the petitioner being the resident of state of Haryana and the citizen of India is now approaching this Honble Court by way of the present Public Interest Litigation invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. That

the

present

petition,

as

would

be

dilated

in

detail

hereinafter, is an eye opener and would bring out the glaring instances of the financial irregularities and high handedness in the respondent department especially at the hands of respondent no.8. That it would come to light that respondent no. 8 has amassed huge properties which cannot be accounted for and has also indulged in malpractices so much so that he has not only misappropriated the state property but has also embezzled the funds of the state. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.8 was

appointed as Haryana Forest Services officer in the year 1980.Thereafter respondent no. 8 was promoted to the Indian Forest Service cadre and was allotted the batch of 1986.

3. That at the outset it would be pertinent to highlight the various instances set out in at this the petition relating no. 8 to in the the

irregularities/misconduct

respondent

respondent department, the details of which are given herein below;

Sr. No. 1.

Instance/case

Source of information

Financial DRDA Jind

irregularities

in RTI

application

dated

13-09-

2011 by Sumant Bhattacharya. application dated

2.

Rs. 16 Crore plantation scam RTI in Jind

12/05/2010 by Abhay Mishra application dated

3.

Jui Mithatlal feeder plantation RTI scam

12/04/2010 by Navneet Sharma

4.

Disproportionate assets

From Singh

complainant

Sh

Sher

5. 6.

Culpable homicide in bhiwani

From the family of victim

Case of forgery and criminal From the complainant sh jagdish intimidation nehra

7.

Case of demand of bribe from From the war widow war widow for giving NOC

8.

Benefitting private agency in RTI application by Satish Mishra case of forest clearance

4. That to begin with, as per information received under the RTI act as stated above, in the year 2004-05 in a scheme sanctioned and initiated by the Central Government by the name of Haryali, it came to light many financial irregularities as well as

embezzlement in the implementation of the said scheme. On conducting a preliminary inquiry of the said irregularities, the Financial Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to

Government of Haryana(Rural Development) vide its letter dated 21.06.2007 informed the Financial Commissioner and thePrincipal Secretary(Forest Department) regarding the irregularities

committed by the respondent no. 8 during the implementation of the above mentioned scheme. In the said letter it was also setout that as many as six charges/irregularities were pointed out against respondent no.6 and it was also stated to take strict disciplinary action against respondent no.8 and to further recover

the amount spent unauthorizedly by him. A copy of the letter dated 21.06.2007 is appended as ANNEXURE P-1.

In continuation thereof, Deputy Commissioner Jind vide its letter dated 03.05.2010after referring to letter dated 21.06.2007 recommended that apart from departmental proceedings against respondent no.8 criminal proceedings should also be initiated against him. A copy of the letter dated03.05.2010 is appended as ANNEXURE P-2.

5. That though even after such strong recommendations regarding initiation of departmental and criminal proceedings against respondent no. 8 no action was being taken by the respondent department. Later on, a committee was constituted under the aegis of the Financial Commissioner(Rural Development) to examine the financial irregularities and embezzlement in the implementation of the Haryali scheme. In pursuance thereof, the Financial Commissioner(Rural Development), after a detailed consideration of the matter yet again vide its letter dated 22.11.2011 wrote to the Financial Commissioner, Forest

Department, to submit an action taken report against respondent no.8. A copy of the letter dated 22.11.2011 is appended as ANNEXURE P-3. It would be pertinent to mention here that till date no action has been taken or even proposed to be taken by respondent department against respondent no.8 even after receiving such strong observations as stated in Annexure P-1, P2 and P-3.

6. The

next

glaring

instance

of

the

irregularities

and

high

handedness in the respondent department especially at the hands of respondent no.8 comes to picture in the year 20052006 and then from 2008-2009. During this above mentioned period of four years, respondent no.8 has showed a plantation of Rs 16 Crore in Jind District, working as D.F.O., there, while actually the area available for plantation was much less.

As per the information obtained under the Right to Information ACT, 2005 as stated above, the total forest area of Jind District is around 6900 hectares. Out of the total forest area 1/3rd is covered by metalled portion of roads, running water course of canals and railway lines. Thus the actual area for plantation is only 4600 hectares. Furthermore as per the information obtained under Right to Information, there are already around 3.5 lakh old trees standing in the forest and around 300 hectare area has been diverted in past 30 years under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Excluding that, the actual area left available for plantation is only 3100 hectares. As per the departmental norms around 25,000/-Rs are spent per hectare for plantation purposes. A simple calculation shows that maximum amount for plantation should not be more than 7.75 Crore but to the utter shock as per the records obtained through RTI, a total of Rs. 15.5 Crore was spend only on plantation in the forest area of Jind District during the relevant period running from year 2005-2006 and 20082009.Even if we take in to account some more expenditure and

add

few

more

hectares

of

non-forest

area

available

for

plantation, this huge gap of nearly 8 crores is unexplainable. During this relevant period all the disbursements were made by the then Divisional Forest Officer(territorial) Shri V.K.Jhanjaria i.e. respondent no.8. The information obtained under RTI revealing the land area and total amount spend on plantation during the above stated period is appended as ANNEXURE P-4. The respondent no.8 has not only siphoned off money through this scam but has also caused a great ecological disaster in a State like Haryana where water table is dangerously receding, by planting mostly eucalyptus trees(eucalyptus trees are known to affect the water table drastically) as they are cheaper than the rest of the species of trees. Not only this, details of plantation clearly shows that respondent no.8 has shown more plantation in area than the actual area by doing overlapping in the same area again and again in order to justify the extra amount of 8 Crores shown to be spent on plantation. The details of overlapping of some sample area, under various schemes during the year 2005-2006 is appended as ANNEXURE P-5.

7. Another case highlighting the misdeeds of respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and sustained from the fact that an FIR being FIR no.454 of 27.10.2009 was registered against the respondent no. 8 under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code wherein respondent no. 8 was the main accused. As per the information obtained from the family of victim, a forest guard Mr. Dhanpat

was continuously being harassed by the respondent no. 8 so much so that respondent no. 8 even withheld his salary for four months without any justification. In the month of October 2009, Respondent no. 8 during a field tour in a nursery in Bhiwani rebuked Mr. Dhanpat and threatened him to dismiss him from the service. Not only this, respondent no. 8 made him do the work even when he was ill. When the health of forest guard deteriorated, respondent no. 8 in complete rashness and

arrogance refused him to leave for the hospital. Later on the forest guard died on his way to hospital. Thereafter on a complaint by the son of the forest guard, a case was registered against respondent no. 8. Since all the witnesses were the employees of the department, hence the employee union made a vehement demand before the

Government to get respondent no. 8 transferred immediately to ensure an impartial investigation but as usual the government did not pay any heed to their request and as a result the apprehension of employee union came to be true as almost all the witnesses turned hostile. A copy of the said FIR is appended as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition.

8. That as per the information obtained from the complainant Sh. Sher Singh the next instance would throw some light on the fact that respondent no.8 has amassed huge properties which cannot be accounted for and has also indulged in malpractices so much so that he has misappropriated the State property and also embezzled the funds of the State. Respondent no.8 started his

career as a moderately paid HFS officer in the year 1980 and later on in the year 1986 was given the batch of IFS. The salary of a HFS/IFS officer is very moderate and with this salary the respondent no. 8 not only raised a family of four but also acquired huge valuable properties in Punjab (Aboharand Fazilka) in his paternal village, in Rajasthan(Sri Ganganagar) and in Haryana(Hisarand Gurgaon) and besides that also have petrol pumps in the name of his sons, wife and daughter-in-laws. In a complaint by one forest guard namely Sh. Sher Singh(who was dismissed by respondent no.8) all the documents relating to unaccounted property acquired by respondent no.8 were

submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in June 2011, in form of an affidavit. An inquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint but as usual because of influence of respondent no. 8, till date no final report has been submitted and no action has been taken against respondent no. 8 and an inquiry no. 2 dated 21.04.2011 is still pending. No attempts were made by the State Vigilance Bureau to search the premises of the respondent, to collect the evidences, as is normally done by the CBI, in case of complaints related to disproportionate assets. A copy of the list of

disproportionate assets is appended as ANNEXURE P-7.

9. That another example of respondent no. 8s unacceptable behavior as a public servant comes to light from information obtained under RTI application by Sh. Abhay Mishra. A letter dated 26.02.10 written by the Principal Chief Conservator of

Forest in which the respondent no.8 was issued a direction with

regard to the unacceptable behavior of respondent no. 8 in the capacity of a Government Servant shows the inappropriate behavior of respondent no. 8. In the year 2010, in a forest clearance case, respondent no.8 was repeatedly writing D.O. letters to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana, for refund of money in favour of a private user agency on one hand and on the other hand, was doing nothing to get certain amounts from that user agency deposited into State Exchequer. Irritated with the act of respondent no. 8, the Chief Principal Conservator of Forest, Haryana issued a direction vide letter dated 26.02.10 to respondent no. 8, to behave as a government servant and to protect the interest of government and not to act as a representative of user agency. A copy of letter dated 26.04.2010 is appended as ANNEXURE P-8.

10.

That another glaring instance highlighting the mis deeds of

respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and sustained from the fact that an FIR regarding forgery and criminal intimidation was launched against respondent no. 8. As per information obtained from the complainant/victim Sh. Jagdish Nehra as mentioned above it comes to light that a FIR being FIR no.522 of 27.06.2011 was registered against the respondent no. 8 in the year 2011 under section wherein

167/177/192/193/196/200/211/463/469/506

respondent no. 8 was the main accused. Respondent no. 8 was annoyed with the District President of Forest Labour Association,

Mr. Jagdish Nehra because he was continuously exposing the fake payments made by respondent no. 8. Mr. Nehra also submitted a complaint against respondent no. 8 regarding fake payments and diversion of government resources in his own farmhouse at Rawalwas, Hisar. To seek revenge from Mr. Nehra, respondent no.8 fabricated a story that Mr. Nehra has demanded some money from one farmer namely Lilu Ram, but on checking the records it was found that the said farmer died long way back. To bring the ill deeds of respondent no.8 to justice, Mr. Jagdish Nehra approached court and on direction of court a FIR was registered against respondent no. 8. Court also ordered the police to submit an investigation report by 04.11.2011, but again respondent no. 8 owing to his political links managed to influence the investigation and that investigation report is still pending till date. A copy of FIR dated 27.06.2011 is appended as

ANNEXURE P-9.

11.

Another

instance

highlighting

the

highhandedness

of

respondent no.8 is from the fact that High Court took cognizance in CWP No. 23492 of 2011 and issued notice to respondent no.8 In a Jui-Mithathal feeder plantation scam of Hisar respondent no. 8 was found guilty in an inquiry conducted by the central government in September-December, 2010, but state

government showed total inaction and there was no step taken in pursuance to Central Governments report. Ultimately the matter came through a PIL in November, 2010 before this Honble Court and a Vigilance Inquiry was ordered to be concluded against

respondent no.8 at the earliest. However, respondent no. 8 being the blue eyed boy of state politics managed to keep Vigilance Inquiry pending against him. Later on another PIL was filed in this Honble Court and this Honble Court was pleased to issue a notice of motion to respondent no.8 and Vigilance Bureau. The case is pending for proper adjudication before this court.

12.

That

another

case

highlighting

the

bad

influence

of

respondent no. 8 in his department is of illegal suspension of a Forest Officer Sh. PrithviRaj by him because the Sh. PrithviRaj had earlier lodged an FIR against his protg range officer, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, (who had embezzled government money). The respondent no. 8 not only managed to get Sh. PrithviRaj suspended but also pressurized him to withdraw the said FIR. This Honble Court took cognizance of the case and the said orders were immediately stayed and notice was issued to respondent no.8 in person. The matter is sub-judice before this Honble Court and pending for final adjudication.

13. from

That as per the information obtained from media news and the victim as stated above another instance of

highhandedness and gross insensitivity of respondent no. 8 comes to light from the fact that a widow of a Kargil Martyr has accused respondent no. 8 for demanding illegal money in return for clearing her case of No Objection Certificate. A news was published in a local newspaper dated 21.02.2012 which

highlighted the misdeeds of respondent no. 8. A widow namely

Ms. Rekha Devi was made to run from one pillar to another in order to get a NOC for starting a petrol pump which was allotted to her under the scheme of allotment of petrol pumps to the widows of Kargil martyrs. When the widow of martyr refused to fulfill illegal demand of respondent no. 8, she was refused NOC certificate necessary to start petrol pump even though she fulfilled all the requirements necessary to get NOC. A copy of the News paper dated 21.01.12 is appended as ANNEXURE P-10. 14. Aggrieved against such behavior and attitude of

respondent no. 8, the widow of Kargil martyr wrote a letter dated 02.01.2012 to the Prime Minister of India highlighting the misdeeds of respondent no. 8. A copy of letter dated 02.01.2012 is appended as ANNEXURE P-11. In response to her letter, the Prime Ministers office wrote a letter dated 24.01.2012to the Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana for taking appropriate action in the said case. A copy of letter dated 24.01.2012 is appended as ANNEXURE P-12. However, till this date no action could have been taken against the respondent no. 8. 15. That aggrieved against such irregularities and in

action at the hands of respondents especially respondent no. 8, the petitioner is approaching this Honble Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation for the redressal of grievances in the interest of public. 16. That at the outset it is submitted that, as enumerated

above, a very sorry state of affairs in the respondent department are evident. The irregularities in the respondent department are writ large and it cannot be believed that the official respondents

were unaware of the same. Despite this the respondents have not even cared to take any action against the defaulting officials including, but not limited to respondent no. 8. Therefore on this short ground alone the present petition deserves to succeed. 17. That it is further submitted that, as has been dilated in the

facts above, respondent no. 8 does not have a clean past and his constantly under the cloud since his appointment. There have been a number of cases of irregularities including financial irregularities against him and the glaring aspect of the same is that a vigilance enquiry has been marked against him which is pending and numerous FIRs were also registered against him. Such being the control and highhandedness of respondent no.8 is evident from the fact that respondent no. 8 has managed one of the FIRs against him in which the witnesses turned hostile and more so from the fact that the vigilance enquiry is pending against him since long and the same has not been concluded and finalized. 18. That following substantial questions of law arise in this

writ petition for the kind consideration by this Honble Court;(A) Whether the inaction of respondent

department against various irregularities including financial irregularities by

respondent no. 8 is arbitrary, illegal and against public interest? (B) Whether the continuation in service of such corrupt public servant is against public interest?

(C)

Whether the respondents are liable to conclude the pending vigilance enquiry against respondent no.8 at the earliest?

(D)

Whether CBI enquiry should be initiated to look into the irregularities committed in the respondent department?

(E)

Whether the petitioner is liable to the relief as sought in this petition?

19.

That there is no appeal/revision against the

action of the respondents. Hence the petitioner has no other option but to approach this Honble Court for the redressal of their grievance except by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India.

20.

That the petitioner has not filed any other writ

either in this Honble Court or in the Honble Supreme Court of India for the same cause of action.

21.

It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court

may be pleased to issue;

(i)

any writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents of the to take financial

cognizance

irregularities and high handedness at the hands of respondent no.8 in

the respondent department and to further take action in pursuance to same. (ii) It is further prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the matter of disproportionate respondent vigilance assets regarding inquiry no. 2 of which dated

21.04.2011 is pending and no action has been taken till date neither the inquiry is concluded, and other

criminal cases including the case of bungling in DRDA, Jind, pending against the respondent, in which no action has been taken till date by the State of Haryana. (iii) It is further prayed that Honble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ or direction as it deems fit in the present circumstances of the case. (iv) It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition and subject to the outcome of the same,

this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents to restrain respondent no.8 from

holding office in any sensitive field posting, in view of the pending vigilance enquiry/CBI inquiry. (v) Advance notices to the respondents may kindly be dispensed with; (vi) Certified copies of annexures may kindly be exempted; (vii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Chandigarh Dated: 10.05.2012 Through Petitioner

(D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh) Advocates Counsel for the Petitioner Verification; Verified that the contents of above writ petition from paras 1 to , and are true and correct to my knowledge; contents of para

are believed to be true and correct and as per the legal advice of my counsel; no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein. Chandigarh Dated: 10.05.2012 Petitioner

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGRH C.W.P.No.________/2012 Harinder Dhingra Versus Union of India and others LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS The petitioner is a RTI activist and has been instrumental in bringing the state authorities in motion against the .Respondents ....Petitioners

irregularities in different departments. In the instant case, the the petitioner in is the

highlighting

irregularities

respondent department on becoming aware about them through newspapers and other sources including the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The present petition, would bring out the glaring instances of the financial

irregularities and high handedness in the respondent department especially at the hands of respondent no.8. That it would come to light that respondent no. 8 has amassed huge properties which cannot be accounted for and has also indulged in

malpractices so much so that he has not only misappropriated the state property but has also embezzled the funds of the state. In the year 2004-05 in a scheme

sanctioned and initiated by the Central Government by the name of Haryali, it came to light many financial irregularities as well as embezzlement in the

implementation of the said scheme. On conducting a preliminary inquiry of the said irregularities, the Financial Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana(Rural Development) vide its letter dated 21.06.2007 informed the

Financial Commissioner and thePrincipal Secretary(Forest the irregularities no. Department) committed 8 regarding by the the

respondent

during

implementation of the above mentioned scheme. Deputy Commissioner Jind vide its letter dated 03.05.2010after referring to letter dated 21.06.2007 recommended that apart from departmental no.8 proceedings criminal against

respondent

proceedings

should also be initiated against him.

Later on, a committee was constituted under the aegis of the Financial to

Commissioner(Rural

Development)

examine the financial irregularities and embezzlement in the implementation of the Haryali scheme. In pursuance thereof, the Financial vide Commissioner(Rural its to letter the dated

Development), 22.11.2011

wrote

Financial to

Commissioner,

Forest

Department,

submit an action taken report against respondent no.8.

During the year 2005-2006 and then from 2008-2009, respondent no.8 has showed a plantation of Rs 16 Crore in Jind District, working as D.F.O., there, while actually the area available for plantation was much less. Another case highlighting the misdeeds of respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and sustained from the fact that an FIR being FIR no.454 of 27.10.2009 was registered against the respondent no. 8 under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code wherein

respondent no. 8 was the main accused.

In

the

month

of

October

2009,

Respondent no. 8 during a field tour in a nursery in Bhiwani rebuked Mr. Dhanpat and threatened him to dismiss him from the service. Not only this, respondent no. 8 made him do the work even when he was ill. When the health of forest guard

deteriorated, respondent no. 8 in complete rashness and arrogance refused him to leave for the hospital. Later on the forest guard died on his way to hospital.Since all the witnesses were the employees of the department, turned hostile. The next instance would throw some light on the fact that respondent no.8 has amassed huge properties which cannot be accounted for. The salary of a HFS/IFS officer is very moderate and with this salary the respondent no. 8 not only raised a family of four but also acquired huge valuable properties in Punjab, Rajasthan and in Haryana and besides that also have petrol pumps in the name of his sons, wife and daughter-in-laws. In a complaint by one forest guard namely Sh. Sher Singh all the documents relating to unaccounted almost all the witnesses

property acquired by respondent no.8 were submitted to the State Vigilance Bureau in June 2011. An inquiry was initiated on the basis of complaint but as usual because of influence of respondent no. 8, till date no final report has been submitted and an inquiry no. 2 dated 21.04.2011 is still pending. In the year 2010, in a forest clearance case, respondent no.8 was repeatedly

writing D.O. letters to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana, for refund of money in favour of a private user agency on one hand and on the other hand, was doing nothing to get certain amounts from that user agency deposited into State

Exchequer. The Chief Principal Conservator of Forest, Haryana issued a to respondent no. 8, to behave as a government servant and to protect the interest of government and not to act as a representative of user agency. Another glaring instance highlighting the mis deeds of respondent no. 8 can also be inferred and sustained from the fact that an FIR regarding forgery and criminal against

intimidation

was

launched

respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 8 was annoyed with the District President of Forest Nehra Labour because Association, he was Mr. Jagdish

continuously by

exposing the fake payments made

respondent no. 8. To seek revenge from Mr. Nehra, respondent no.8 fabricated a story that Mr. Nehra has demanded some money from one farmer namely Lilu Ram, but on checking the records it was found that the said farmer died long way back. Mr. Jagdish Nehra approached court and on direction of court a FIR was registered against ordered respondent the no. 8. to Court submit also an

police

investigation report by 04.11.2011, but again respondent no. 8 owing to his

political links managed to influence the investigation and that investigation report is still pending till date.

In a Jui-Mithathal feeder plantation scam of Hisar respondent no. 8 was found guilty in an inquiry conducted in by the central

government

September-December,

2010, but state government showed total inaction. Ultimately the matter came

through a PIL in November, 2010 before this Honble Court and a Vigilance Inquiry was ordered to be concluded against

respondent no.8 at the earliest. However, respondent no. 8 being the blue eyed boy of state politics managed to keep Vigilance Inquiry pending against him. Later on another PIL was filed in this Honble Court and this Honble Court was pleased to issue a notice of motion to respondent no.8 and Vigilance Bureau. The case is pending for proper adjudication before this court.

Another influence

case of

highlighting no.

the 8 in

bad his

respondent

department is of illegal suspension of a Forest Officer Sh. PrithviRaj by him

because Sh. PrithviRaj had earlier lodged an FIR against his protg range officer, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, (who had embezzled government money). This Honble Court took cognizance of the case and the said orders were immediately stayed and notice was issued to respondent no.8 in person. The matter is sub-judice before this Honble Court and pending for final adjudication.

Another instance of highhandedness and gross insensitivity of respondent no. 8 comes to light from the fact that a widow of a Kargil Martyr has accused respondent no. 8 for demanding illegal money in return for clearing her case of No Objection

Certificate. A widow namely Ms. Rekha Devi was made to run from one pillar to another in order to get a NOC for starting a petrol pump which was allotted to her under the scheme of allotment of petrol pumps to the widows of Kargil martyrs but, she was refused NOC certificate.

Aggrieved

against

such

attitude

of

respondent no. 8, the widow of Kargil martyr wrote a letter dated 02.01.2012 to the Prime Minister of India.In response the Prime Ministers office wrote a letter dated 24.01.2012 Government appropriate to of action the Chief Secretary for said of

Haryana in the

taking case.

However, till this date no action could have been taken against the respondent no. 8. Chandigarh Dated:10.5.12 (D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh) Advocates Counsel for the Petitioner

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.________/2012 Harinder Dhingra Versus Union of India and others .Respondents ..Petitioners

_______________________________________________________

Chandigarh Dated:10.5.12 (D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh) Advocates Counsel for the Petitioner

IN THE HONBLE HIGH CHANDIGARH

COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

C.W.P.No.______of 2012 Harinder Dhingra Versus Union of India and others INDEX Sr. No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 15. Description List of Events Civil Writ Petition Affidavit in support Annexure P-1(Letter) Annexure P-2(Letter) Annexure P-3(Letter) Annexure P-4(RTI information) Annexure P-5(RTI information) Annexure P-6(FIR) Annexure P-7(List) Annexure P-8(Letter) Annexure P-9(FIR) Annexure P-10(News Paper) Annexure P-11(Letter) Annexure P-12(Letter) Power of Attorney Total Amount Dated 10.5.12 10.5.12 10.5.12 21.06.07 03.05.10 22.11.11 14.05.10 27.10.09 June11 26.04.10 27.06.11 21.01.12 02.01.12 24.01.12 01.05.12 Pages 1-8 9-26 27-28 29-35 36-37 38-39 40-42 43 44-47 48 49-50 51-57 58-59 60-63 64 65 Amount .Respondents ..Petitioners

1: The main law points involved in this writ petition are at page no. para No. 2:Constitution of India 3:Any other case:Nil 4:Any caveat received:NO Chandigarh Dated:10.05.2012 (D.S.Patwalia)(Abhishek Singh) Advocates Counsel for the Petitioner

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.________/2012 Harinder Dhingra Versus Union of India and others .Respondents ..Petitioners

Affidavit of Harinder Dhingra S/o Late Sunder

Lal Dhingra R/o D 4A/7, DLF Haryana. Phase 1, Gurgaon,

**** I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under; 1. That the petitioner submits that there is no personal interest of petitioner involved in this petition. 2. That the above said writ petition is being filed which is likely to succeed inter alia on the grounds mentioned therein.

3. That the contents of above writ petition from paras

to ,

and are true and correct to my knowledge; contents of para are believed to be true and correct as per the legal advice of

my counsel; no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein. 4. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ either in this Court or in the Honble Supreme court of India. 5. That there is no appeal/statutory revision lies against the action of the respondents. Chandigarh Dated:10.05.12 Verification; Verified that the contents of above affidavit read over to me and found to be true and correct to my knowledge; no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein. Chandigarh Dated:10.05.12 Deponent Deponent