Yag Dutt Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Yag Dutt Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2024

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353




CRM-M-54503-2023                                    1                                 2024:PHHC:022353

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                     AT CHANDIGARH

219                                             CRM-M-54503-2023
                                                Date of Decision: 16.02.2024

Yag Du  Sharma                                                 ......... Pe  oner

                              Versus

State of Haryana                                               ......... Respondent



CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present        Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate;
               Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate and
               Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate for the pe  oner.

               Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.

           Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate
           for the complainant.
                         ****

ANOOP CHITKARA (ORAL)

FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons
505 22.09.2023 Ambala Can , 384, 420, 120-B IPC and (Sec on 7 &
District Ambala 13(1) (d) of Preven on of Corrup on Act
1988 added later on)

1. Apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, pe oner had come up before
this Court seeking an cipatory bail by filing the present pe on under Sec on 438
Cr.P.C.

2. Vide order dated 25.10.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted
interim bail which was further extended vide detailed order 07.02.2024 subject to
compliance of certain condi ons which is con nuing ll date.

3. Facts of the case are being extracted from para 4 of the reply dated 17.01.2024,
which reads as under: –

“4. That complainant Amit Saxena moved a complaint against
present pe oner, Neeraj Sharma s/o L.C Sharma resident of
House no. 4314/3 Ansari Road Dariyaganj Central Delhi and Vijay
Pal Singh s/o Maha Ram Singh resident of House no. B-3 Vishav
Apartment plot No. 48 Sector 9 North-Wes Delhi and enquiry was
conducted by the Economic Cell, Ambala, District Ambala and on
the recommenda on of Economic Cell FIR was registered under
sec on 384,420,120-B IPC P.S Ambala Can8. District Ambala. A9er
registra on of the FIR inves ga on was carried out by the police
of P.S Ambala Can8. During the course of inves ga on of the
case, a9er perusing the documents produced by the complainant
i.e Bills of goods sent by the complainant at NCERT, ge:ng the
inspec on done on me, ge:ng the rate contract renewed of firm

1
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 22:07:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353

CRM-M-54503-2023 2 2024:PHHC:022353

etc. and on the allega on of receiving gi9s again & again and
cash received by the co accused Neeraj from the complainant, On
24-09-2023 Sec on 7, 13 (1) (d) of the Preven on of Corrup on
Act was added and SIT was cons tuted as per the order of
Superintendent of Police Ambala.

4. This Court also deems it appropriate to reproduce the FIR, which reads as under: –

“Superintendent of Police, Ambala City Subject: Applica on
against Dr. V.P. Singh, HOD. Divisional office – Kits (Dek) NCERT.
(Office Address: Na onal Council of Educa onal Research and
Training, Sri Arvind Marg, New Delhi-110016) Phone:

01126592271 Mobile: 9818102115, Neeraj Sharma Former
Forman Dek Yagdu8 Sharma Ex. Sec on Officer (Dek). Regarding
negligence in government service, and threatening and
in mida ng the applicant to extract bribes and non-compliance
with unlawful demands, causing mental, physical, and financial
harm to the applicant. Sir, it is requested that

1. The applicant, Amit Saxena, son of Mr. Harish Chandra Saxena,
is the proprietor of M/S Inter Labs H.S.A. (H.U.F.) in Ambala Can8.

He has been doing business of scien fic instruments, math and
science kits for many years and has been supplying these items to
educa onal ins tu ons throughout India, both government and
non-government.

2. In the year 2021, NCERT (Na onal Council of Educa onal
Research and Training) had issued an E-Tender for supplying
science and educa onal kits to educa onal ins tu ons in all states
of India. The applicant was selected as a successful bidder and in
accordance with the terms of the said tender, an agreement was
made with NCERT for one year on 15.12.2021, which could be
extended for two more years.

3. It was binding on the applicant and NCERT to adhere to all the
terms of the tender as per the condi ons of the amendment dated
15.12.2021.

4. Some me a9er the aforemen oned contract was executed,
NCERT issued an order to the applicant to prepare certain items
under the Division of Educa on Kits (Dek). The applicant complied
with the order and, following an inspec on, dispatched the items
to educa onal ins tu ons located in India as per NCERT’s
direc ves. A9er the supply of these items, the applicant submi8ed
the bill, sa sfac on cer ficate, and all requisite documents to
NCERT’s Head of Department (HOD) for the Division of Educa on
Kit (Dek), expec ng payment within 30 days as per the tender
terms. However, the senior officer, Dr. V.P., did not forward these
to NCERT’s Accounts Department in a mely manner and
con nued to delay the payment for the goods supplied by the
applicant under various pretexts.

5. Furthermore, Dr. V.P. Singh, through his associate Neeraj
Sharma, who was the foreman at that me, demanded a 1% bribe
as a precondi on for processing the bills for payment. When the
applicant did not comply with this illicit demand, the payment for
his bills was unjus fiably delayed for 3-4 months.

6. It was s pulated that a9er the comple on of one year of
the aforemen oned agreement, the applicant’s contract was to be
renewed for the next 1 year on 14.12.2022. However, Dr. V.P.
Singh and his associates demanded money from the applicant as a
condi on for renewal. In this context, Neeraj Sharma had invited

2
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 22:07:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353

CRM-M-54503-2023 3 2024:PHHC:022353

the applicant to meet at Kingfisher Ambala in 2021, but the
applicant declined to go there on December 25, leading Dr. V.P.
Singh and his associates to deliberately avoid renewing the
agreement on me, thus tarnishing the market reputa on of both
the applicant and their firm. Ul mately, when the applicant
reached out to higher authori es for the renewal of their
aforemen oned agreement, it was renewed by Dr. V.P. Singh and
others in February 2022 for one year, i.e., from 24.12.2022 to
14.12.2023. Dr. V.P. Singh and his associates inten onally delayed
the process when the applicant did not meet their illegi mate
demands.

7. Various state governments in India had issued orders to NCERT
for supplying educa onal kits to educa onal ins tu ons within
their states. The Gujarat government issued an order regarding
the supply of educa onal kits on 21.06.2022, Himachal Pradesh
government on 15.11.2022, U8ar Pradesh government on
12.12.2022, and Bihar and Haryana governments issued separate
orders on 03.03.2023. The purpose of these orders was for NCERT
to prepare educa onal kits through its empanelled contractors
and deliver them on me to educa onal ins tu ons in these states
to aid in children’s educa on. Despite receiving separate orders
from the aforemen oned governments, the senior official of
NCERT’s DEK department, Dr. V.P. Singh, and other employees
deliberately delayed giving these orders to NCERT’s empanelled
contractors. In lieu of providing the said orders, Dr. V.P. Singh
solicited a bribe from the pe oner through his associate Neeraj
Sharma, who was the then foreman. However, the pe oner did
not fulfil the bribe demand, leading Dr. V.P. Singh to inten onally
delay issuing the order to the pe oner, who only received it much
later along with other firms.

8. The pe oner prepared the goods as per the orders given by
NCERT, which were meant for educa onal ins tu ons across
several states, and wrote to the DEK department of NCERT several
mes about ge:ng the goods inspected.

9. Despite wri8en requests from the pe oner to inspect the
prepared goods, Dr. V.P. Singh and others did not form an
inspec on team. When the pe oner repeatedly requested for an
inspec on, Mr. Yagda8 Sharma, the Ex-Sec on Officer, told him
that Dr. V.P. Singh was quite upset with the pe oner for not
adhering to his demands and for failing to please the senior
officials of the department. If the pe oner wanted mely
payment for his goods a9er inspec on, he would have to accede
to Dr. V.P. Singh’s demands. However, the pe oner refused to
meet these unjust demands, leading the senior officials to
inten onally delay the inspec on. Finally, the inspec on of
the pe oner’s goods was conducted on May 16, 2023, and within
the next 2-3 days, and the inspec on team was sa sfied with the
produc vity and quality of the goods, sending their report to the
DEK department accordingly.

10. It states that on June 5, 2023, the applicant was informed via a
le8er from the Under Secretary, CIET/NCERT, to appear as a
witness in a departmental Inquiry against Pankaj Clerk on June 9,
2023, at 11:00 AM. Upon a8ending, Madame Usha, the Under
Secretary, showed a video. A9er watching it, the applicant learned
that Pankaj Clerk had demanded bribes during a mee ng with
science industry traders at Kingfisher Ambala on December 25,

3
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 22:07:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353

CRM-M-54503-2023 4 2024:PHHC:022353

2021. The applicant informed the aforemen oned authority that
he was invited to this mee ng by Neeraj Sharma but did not
a8end due to principles. Therefore, the applicant does not have
further informa on about the mee ng.

11. It is also stated that a9er the inspec on of the applicant’s
finished goods, the NCERT was supposed to send a supply list of
those goods to various educa onal ins tu ons to the applicant.
However, senior officials like Dr. V.P. Singh deliberately did not
send the supply list to the applicant. Instead, they demanded a 1%
cash bribe of the order value. When the applicant did not comply
with Dr. V.P. Singh’s unethical demands, he inten onally delayed
sending the list of 2 out of the 7 orders to U8ar Pradesh on June 9,
2023, and Bihar on July 12, 2023, while not sending the list for
other states.

12. It is further stated that Dr. V.P. Singh, the HOD, is deliberately
delaying the sending of the aforemen oned order, its inspec on,
and delivery list because he wishes to receive a 1% bribe of the
order value from the applicant.

13. The complainant stated that when the delivery list of the
above-men oned orders was not received on me, they met with
Dr. V.P. Singh and other officials. During this mee ng, the officials
told the complainant that the delay was deliberate on their part.
They suggested that if the complainant wanted to expedite the
work, they would have to “please” them and the other
departmental employees, and would have to give 1% of the order
value as a bribe. If this was not done, the complainant was
informed that the delivery list would not be provided on me. Dr.
V.P. Singh and his colleagues demanded bribes and illegal
payments from the complainant for placing the order, arranging
for its inspec on, releasing the delivery supply list, and making the
payment for the supplied goods. They also threatened harm if
their illegal demands were not met, sta ng that if the complainant
wished to con nue working with the department, they would have
to meet all their legi mate and illegi mate demands. They further
stated that if the complainant did not comply, they would not
approve the prepared goods and would delay the supply list long
enough to force the complainant to meet their demands.

14. The pe oner is a law-abiding individual who has been
conduc ng business with the aforemen oned firm for his
livelihood. However, senior officials of the department, Dr. V.P.
Singh (Re red), Neeraj Sharma, and Yagyadu8 Sharma (Ex. S.O.).
demanded 1% of the order amount from the pe oner. This
amount was solicited for their personal financial gain, and their
unethical ac ons, including Dr. V.P. Singh and other guilty par es,
led to the pe oner not being informed about the order on me
and a delay in the inspec on of the goods prepared by him. Now,
they are deliberately not providing the delivery list to the
pe oner to coerce him into giving in to their illegi mate and
forced demands of 1% of the order amount as a bribe. All these
acts have been deliberately delayed by the guilty par es, showing
negligence and inefficiency in their government jobs, causing
significant loss to the government. The educa onal kits that were
supposed to be delivered on me for children’s educa on have
been delayed with the intent of personal gain, which is a
punishable offence and is not excusable. Dr. V.P. Singh, HOD, and
others have done all these ac ons to pressure the pe oner into

4
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 22:07:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353

CRM-M-54503-2023 5 2024:PHHC:022353

paying the 1% amount as bribery and extor on. Because the
pe oner did not meet their unethical demands, the list of items
has been deliberately not sent to him on me, even though these
officials know that the pe oner has prepared all these goods
with loans from banks. Any delay in delivering the goods will
consequently delay the pe oner in supplying them. The
pe oner is a common man and is doing this business for his
livelihood. He has no other source of income, and due to Dr. V.P.
Singh not providing the delivery orders on me, the prepared
goods have been lying in the pe oner’s warehouse for a long
me, accruing interest on its cost day by day. Dr. V.P. Singh, who
is a senior official of DEK NCERT, has the duty to mely supply
science and educa onal kits to various schools in India to ensure
that children’s educa on is not hindered. However, Dr. V.P. Singh,
with the inten on of serving his own interests and for personal
gain, and due to his demands not being met, has inten onally
delayed the list of supplies. He has tampered with the future of the
applicants, the general public, and children while being a Public
Servant, which is a serious offense.

15. It is already under inves ga on by the Vigilance Department
against Neeraj Sharma and Yagda8 Sharma. Therefore, we
request that, taking cognizance of the applicant’s request, a case
be registered against V.P. Singh, Head Department, Divisional
office Kits (Dek) NCERT, and others under the Indian Penal Code
and the Preven on of Corrup on Act, and legal ac on be taken so
that no one like Dr. V.P. Singh can ever tamper with the future of
India’s children. Therefore, we request that jus ce be provided to
us. We shall be forever grateful.”

5. The pe oner’s counsel submits that the role a ributed by the complainant to the
pe oner Yag Du Sharma is given in para No. 9 of FIR which reproduced again and
same as follows:

“9. Despite wri8en requests from the pe oner to inspect the prepared
goods, Dr. V.P. Singh and others did not form an inspec on team. When
the pe oner repeatedly requested for an inspec on, Mr. Yagda8
Sharma, the Ex-Sec on Officer, told him that Dr. V.P. Singh was quite
upset with the pe oner for not adhering to his demands and for failing
to please the senior officials of the department. If the pe oner wanted
mely payment for his goods a9er inspec on, he would have to accede
to Dr. V.P. Singh’s demands. However, the pe oner refused to meet
these unjust demands, leading the senior officials to inten onally delay
the inspec on.”

5 A. Thus, there is no demand by him and his role is different from the other two
accused, and the order of dismissal of bail in those cases will not a ract against the
pe oner.

6. Counsel for the State as well as complainant oppose the bail on the grounds that
this Court has already dismissed the bail pe on of Dr. V.P. Singh and Neeraj Sharma, as
such, pe oner’s bail is also liable to be dismissed. State counsel further submits that

5
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 22:07:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353

CRM-M-54503-2023 6 2024:PHHC:022353

once the pe oner was aware of the evil designs of Dr. V.P. Singh s ll instead of guiding
the complainant to file a complaint or report to his superior, the pe oner, in fact, told
him that he had no other op on but to make Dr. V.P. Singh happy which show that he
might also have a share in commission of 1%.

7. An analysis of the pe on, reply and the arguments addressed by the counsel
would lead to the following outcome. It does not transpire from the complaint or the
reply that pe oner in fact had demanded any money for himself. The only allega on
against him is that when the complainant had contacted him then he had told him about
the working of Dr. V.P. Singh and also told him that if he wanted mely payment of his
bills, then he would have to accede to V.P. Singh’s demands. It appears that the
pe oner had only apprised the complainant about the corrupt system prevalent in his
department. The fact that the pe oner did not bring the corrup on to the no ce of his
Superiors, is a ma er which has to be looked into by the concerned department by
holding a departmental enquiry. Further, in case the departmental enquiry also gets
evidence of his lapse that has nothing to do with the present pe on for the reasons
that the evidence which have been shown to this Court does not point out that
pe oner had any share out of the 1% share which was demanded by Dr. V.P. Singh
through his conduit Neeraj Sharma.

8. Given above, the allega ons against the pe oner are en rely different from
Neeraj Sharma, who had organized a mee ng with a view to demand 1% commission
and the fact that complainant had men oned Dr. V.P. Singh as the person, who was
siFng over the file and had the authority to do so. Coupled with the fact that the
pe oner was a Sec on Officer and had no independent decision making capacity, as
such, his case is dis nct.

9. Earlier also, this Court had heard the ma er on 06.02.2024 and thought it proper
that given the pe oner’s stand that he was honest, let him declare his assets. On this,
the ma er is listed for today and counsel for the pe oner submits that the pe oner
has voluntarily complied with the order dated 07.02.2024 and has declared his assets
and would not take such declara on as self incrimina on, viola on of Ar cle 20/21 of
Cons tu on of India or any other fundamental right/law.

Given above, the present pe on is allowed and interim order dated 07.02.2024 is
made absolute. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.



                                                       (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                           JUDGE
16.02.2024
Jyo -II
        Whether speaking/reasoned:             Yes
        Whether reportable:                    No.

                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022353
                                               6
                                      6 of 6
                   ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2024 22:07:47 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *