Punjab and Haryana High Court questions Haryana on engagement of retired CBI officers as police officers on contract basis

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently took exception to the decision of the Haryana government to appoint retired officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on contract basis to carry out police investigation in a corruption case [Dheeraj Garg versus State of Haryana and Others]..Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj questioned whether investigating officers could be so appointed by way of a contract and also said that the Police Act does not approve or authorize engagement of a police officers on contract basis.The judge also noted that the retired officers in question had been appointed to the gazzetted rank of Superintendent of Police and Deputy of Superintendent of Police, which are Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre posts. "It is incomprehensible to perceive that appointment at the post of an IPS Cadre is being made on a contractual basis ... The Police Act does not approve or authorize engagement of a Police Officer on contract basis," the judge observed.The Court further asked whether such officers were authorised to conduct the investigation and file a chargesheet..The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the investigation carried out by the State Vigilance Bureau against an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Dheeraj Garg in a corruption case.Pertinently, the Court was told that the investigating officer in the case was actually a retired officer of the CBI who had been engaged as a Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.It was also submitted that even the charge sheet was filed under the signatures of a Superintendent of Police-ranked officer, who was also a retired officer engaged on a contractual basis as a consultant to guide the investigating officer. .In view of concerns that such contractually appointed officers cannot conduct such investigations, the Court ordered the Haryana State Vigilance Bureau to withdraw the investigation. The Court also stayed further proceedings in the case. “The investigation handed over by the State Vigilance Bureau to the persons engaged on contract basis shall henceforth be withdrawn with immediate effect till further orders,” the Court said..In response to the Court's queries, the Anti-Corruption Bureau had earlier defended the appointment of the retired officers on a contract basis, submitting that such engagement had been approved by the Chief Minister.According to the documents filed in Court, the Director General of the State Vigilance Bureau had sent a proposal to the Vigilance Department for the engagement of CBI officials on a deputation basis. However, the proposal was later changed to allow the engagement of retired officers as consultants, the Court noted. .The Court further pointed out that there was no reference in the State’s reply to any law that could allow police officers to be engaged on a contract basis.The Court also noted that a police officer was required to fulfill certain requirements under the Haryana Police Act, 2007.“For a person to be 'a member of the Police Service', he has to be in the cadre as per the service jurisprudence since 'Police service' means the 'service constituted under this Act.' The Police Act does not approve or authorize engagement of a Police Officer on contract basis,” the Court observed..An investigation in cases arising out of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be conducted by an officer of the rank of DSP or above, that is, by a Gazetted Officer, the single-judge underscored. “It is still not answered as to how the status of a Gazetted Officer could be conferred on a person who had been engaged on a contract basis under an initial engagement proposal as that of a consultant and as to under what order or capacity could he discharge the functions of an Investigating Officer and to file final reports," the Court added..Meanwhile, the counsel representing the accused IRS officer (petitioner) asserted that the proceedings against him did not satisfy the requirements of law..On November 7, the Court said that the chargesheet filed by the contractual officer in the case “shall not be proceeded any further and the proceedings therein shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”.The Court will consider the matter again on December 16..Advocates Amandeep Vashisth and Manish Soni represented the petitioner. Senior Deputy Advocate General Shruti Jain Goyal represented the State government of Haryana..[Read Order]