Latest news with #Nagu
Indian Express
21-07-2025
- Indian Express
HC slaps Rs 1 lakh fine on Punjab for charge-sheeting retd engineer: ‘avoidable' litigation, wasted court time
Slapping a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the Punjab government for pursuing what it called 'avoidable' and 'legally untenable' litigation that wasted court's time, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings against a former executive engineer by the state Public Works Department (B&R) four years after retirement. A single bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu held that the charge-sheet issued by the Principal Secretary, PWD (B&R), on July 9, 2021, was 'wholly barred' by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. 'The impugned charge-sheet cannot survive the test of law and has to be quashed on anvil of Rule 2.2(b),' the court said, pointing out that the alleged lapses dated back to 2008–2010, more than 11 years before the issuance of the notice and well beyond the permissible four-year limit for post-retirement proceedings. Chief Justice Nagu strongly criticised the Punjab government for forcing retired executive engineer Paramjit Singh to litigate to vindicate his rights. 'The precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation, which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents in blatant violation of law,' Justice Nagu observed. 24 years of service, charge-sheet after retirement Appearing for the retired officer, Advocate Sarthak Gupta said Paramjit joined the Punjab PWD (B&R) as sub divisional engineer in July 1993 and rose to the post of executive engineer in January 2008. He retired on December 31, 2017, after 24 years of what he described as unblemished service. Four years later, the 2021 charge-sheet accused him of multiple lapses in handling land acquisition cases during his tenure as executive engineer in Construction Division No. 1, Ferozepur. The allegations stemmed from a long-standing dispute over land in village Mohan Ke Uttar, Ferozepur. Paramjit was accused of submitting an incorrect report, failing to verify revenue records, and recommending re-acquisition of land without due diligence, allegedly causing a loss of Rs 1.83 crore to the state. The case arose from a civil suit filed in 2000 by one Gurmit Singh, decreed in 2006, which directed compensation or the return of possession. Appeals by the department were dismissed in 2007. Advocate Gupta contended that Paramjit had acted in good faith and with due diligence, repeatedly seeking records from the Land Acquisition Officer, Jalandhar, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, and other authorities. Some of these records, the lawyer claimed, dated back to 1965 and were missing or not made available until 2020. Based on the Jamabandis (land records) available at the time, Paramjit recommended acquiring Khasra No. 116, akin to Khasra No. 117, and prepared a draft notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was duly approved by competent authorities, his counsel contended. Advocate Gupta further contended that after Paramjit's transfer in April 2010, the acquisition process continued under his successor and higher officials. In a 2011 meeting, it was reaffirmed that Khasra No. 117 had not been acquired in 1962, prompting proceedings for the acquisition of both parcels. It was only in 2019 that official records surfaced showing the land had, in fact, been acquired in 1962 and compensation already paid, leading to recovery suits filed by the department in 2020. Terming the case 'de hors the very basic object of Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab,' the court noted that the government had filed 'an affidavit running in 56 pages opposing the claim of petitioner tooth and nail.' This conduct, Justice Nagu said, was 'nothing short of misusing the judicial process.' The court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the State, directing it to deposit the amount in the Poor Patients Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh, and gave the government liberty to recover the sum 'from the salary of the authority issuing the impugned charge-sheet' , in this case, the Principal Secretary, PWD (B&R). Chief Justice Nagu pointed out, Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, 'places a complete bar for issuance of a charge-sheet when issued after the date of superannuation in regard to any incident which took place four years before the issuance.'
Hindustan Times
04-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Punjab and Haryana chief justice recuses from Gurugram builder trial
Punjab and Haryana high court chief justice Sheel Nagu on Thursday recused himself from hearing a petition filed by a Gurugram builder that sought to quash an FIR in a corruption case. Gavel and law books (Getty Images/iStockphoto/ Representational image) The move came after the petitioner's lawyer raised objection to the chief justice continuing to hear the case. Chief justice Nagu on May 10 in an administrative order had withdrawn the case from another judge who was set to pronounce the final judgment and listed it before his own bench. The withdrawal was prompted by 'oral and written complaints', chief justice Nagu had said. The petition filed by real estate firm M3M's director Roop Bansal seeks to quash an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar. During subsequent hearings, the petitioner's counsel objected to the withdrawal of the case but the chief justice had maintained that the decision was taken to 'preserve the dignity and honour of the institution' and to 'protect the reputation' of the judge. On Thursday, appearing for the builder, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that he had instructions from his client to 'raise objection' to the chief justice continuing to hear the case. 'It is our duty to advise the court on principle. There are innumerable examples where the chief justice of India has refused to deal with the case on the judicial side when it has dealt with it on the administrative side. ..best example is also administrative judges who never deal with the cases which they have dealt on administrative duty,' Singhvi said. On the other hand, Zohair Husaain, counsel for ED, which has sought impleadment in the case, said what the office of chief justice does on the administrative side 'never comes in the way of the judicial side.' However, in view of the submissions, the chief justice ordered the listing of the case before some other bench. ED's interest in the case comes from the fact that Parmar was presiding over ED court and ED is investigating Bansal. The case stems from an April 2023 FIR, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who was then special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Bansal and others who were accused in some FIRs being investigated by CBI and ED, pending before his court.
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
‘May have given wrong impression': Abhishek Singhvi seeks to withdraw realtor Roop Bansal's plea in Punjab & Haryana High Court
In a notable turn of events during a hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on real estate developer Roop Bansal's plea to quash a corruption FIR, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought to withdraw the petition before a special bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Tuesday. The petition by Roop Bansal, director of the real estate firm M3M, seeks to quash an FIR filed by Haryana's Anti-Corruption Bureau. As the hearing began, Singhvi opened with a pointed clarification, 'I understand why, My Lord, sometimes a wrong message is given, as if we are trying to delay or not have it heard… I just deprecate that.' Singhvi acknowledged past adjournments and sought to dispel any notion of evasiveness. 'Yes, we may have given a wrong impression … I believe in being very candid with the court,' he said. He proceeded to outline what he called 'seven or eight substantive points', foremost among them being the lack of sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which he termed a jurisdictional defect. 'The interesting point is that 17A is mandatory—this is not disputed. And 17A has factually not been taken—this too is not disputed,' he said. The chief justice interjected to clarify that the judicial officer mentioned in the FIR was not before the court. 'The judge's case is not before us, so we are not dealing with his case,' Chief Justice Nagu said. Singhvi responded: 'No, My Lord, I'm talking about the allegation against me. I'm M3M. The allegation is that I conspired with the judge to get benefits. If the judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120B with him?' CJ Nagu reiterated: 'The judge concerned is not the petitioner.' Singhvi then pivoted to challenge the evidentiary basis of the FIR, citing that WhatsApp screenshots and voice recordings had not been validated by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's reports. 'Out of four recordings, three are not matched. One is a probable match—not a confirmed one,' he submitted. Singhvi also raised objections to alleged illegal interceptions, pointing to violations of Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules: 'There is no averment of following the interception rules… and there's case law to that effect.' The senior counsel also criticised the role of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had opposed the petition. 'The ED is intervening with no locus in a predicate offence case… My clients were foolish enough not to challenge their intervention,' Singhvi said. Senior counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, said the agency's impleadment had not been objected to. Singhvi then made a candid admission. 'I don't want to risk adverse findings on my ultimate trial… This is a very strange case. I'm not seeking any relief today. I wish to withdraw this petition.' However, Chief Justice Nagu declined the request, stating: 'We are hearing you on merits… I would decline that request of yours.' Insisting on the right of an accused to withdraw a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Singhvi said: 'Surely, My Lord, a criminal accused has a right to withdraw… Look, I want to satisfy the judge's conscience. There shouldn't be any catch to it. Today, opposing me is the ED—of all people—in a predicate offence 482.' Singhvi asked the court to at least record his request, 'Kindly record my submission that I wish to withdraw it.' When Singhvi expressed concern about adverse observations affecting his trial, Chief Justice Nagu reassured him, 'Even if we record some observations, we will always say that this will not influence the trial judge.' The hearing continued with Chief Justice Nagu directing Singhvi to proceed with his arguments. The case will now be heard at 9.30 am on Thursday.
Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Reassigned Case: Chief Justice Nagu hints at ‘bench hunting', says Bar being ‘destroyed'
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday pulled up the legal team in the Roop Bansal corruption case for seeking an adjournment before a special bench. The special bench was formed after Chief Justice Nagu withdrew the case from another bench — which heard the arguments and reserved judgment — following 'oral and written' complaints and assigned the case to himself. 'The present special bench has been created after carving and encroaching upon the time meant for division bench 1. It is unfortunate that such a request for adjournment is being made in a case registered before a Special Bench,' Chief Justice said, directing the matter to be taken up at 9.30 am on Tuesday. Earlier, the courtroom proceedings began with an advocate from the office of Senior Advocate Vijay Aggarwal praying for adjournment. The advocate submitted that Aggarwal had fallen ill in the morning and undergone a hernia surgery due to which he was unable to argue while Senior Advocate Puneet Bali was out of the country. Chief Justice Nagu noted that the special bench had been created pursuant to the order passed by the court on May 23, in which he had dismissed a challenge against his decision to reassign the corruption matter and underlined the Chief Justice's administrative control over court rosters and authority to reassign judicial work. Appearing virtually, Zoheb Hossain, counsel for Enforcement Directorate, objected to the adjournment request. 'Was this person who is not well…was he appearing on the last date or not? Because it can't be, My Lord, that new counsel are brought in who are not well, and adjournment is sought when, on the contrary, tearing hurry was being shown in this matter earlier'. At one point, Chief Justice Nagu directed the petitioner's team to summon Advocate JK Singla, who had earlier filed a fresh petition in the case. 'Where is Mr JK Singla? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. Call Mr JK Singla whose power (of attorney) was filed just to get the case out of a particular Bench. This is the kind of professional ethics you are showing…You are encouraging people just to not make any effort…You are destroying the Bar virtually,' Chief Justice Nagu observed. Hossain also countered the petitioner's arguments on merit. He said Roop Bansal could not invoke protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it applied only to public servants. 'Bansal is a businessman,' Hossain said, adding that the only other ground raised was that telephone conversations, which are being used, have been extracted without proper authority of law, and that these could not form the basis of the FIR. Hossain cited a Supreme Court ruling to highlight that these could still be used as information for filing an FIR. Additional Advocate General for Haryana, Deepal Balyan, submitted that the original record was in court custody and the investigating officer, a DSP in the state Anti-Corruption Bureau, was present. The court directed Balyan to retain the record and relieved the officer. The case The case — Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana and others — seeks to quash an FIR dated April 17, 2023, lodged by the Haryana anti-corruption branch against M3M director Roop Bansal, former CBI special judge Sudhir Parmar, and latter's nephew Ajay Parmar. The matter has had a turbulent procedural history. Initially filed in January 2025, it was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat, who recused himself on January 14. The case was then withdrawn from before the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul on February 13. A fresh petition was filed on April 7 by Advocate JK Singla — whose cases are not listed before Justice Kaul — and was then marked to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu. After arguments concluded and the verdict was reserved on May 2, Chief Justice Nagu reassigned the matter to himself on May 10. The petitioner's lawyers, including senior advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Puneet Bali had strongly objected to this, arguing that a 'matter which is heard and reserved by a Bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other Single Bench including that of the Chief Justice'. On May 23, dismissing objections to his decision, Chief Justice Nagu asserted that 'Chief Justice's powers' as master of the roster were 'wide, pervading and plenary,' exercised to 'protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in judiciary by litigants.' He further said the reassignment was to 'draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment.'
