Haryana's Controversial Call: Officer in Bribery Case Discharged After Government Denies Prosecution

In a move that has ignited significant debate and raised questions about accountability in public service, a former Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Panchkula, Dr. Jaibir Singh, has been discharged by a special court in a high-profile bribery case. The discharge comes after the Haryana government repeatedly refused to grant permission for his prosecution, a decision sharply criticised by the court itself.

The case, which dates back to August 2021, involved serious allegations against Dr.

Singh, who was accused of demanding a substantial bribe of Rs 5 lakh from a private hospital owner. The alleged demand was made in exchange for a crucial no-objection certificate (NOC) necessary for the establishment of a trauma centre. This incident unfolded during the challenging period of the Covid-19 pandemic, adding another layer of gravity to the accusations of misuse of power.

An FIR was swiftly filed by the State Vigilance Bureau, now known as the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The investigation implicated not only Dr. Jaibir Singh but also two other individuals: Dr. Pawan Goyal, the private hospital owner, and Jagmohan Sharma, a private citizen. While charges were framed against Goyal and Sharma in October 2022, the proceedings against Dr. Singh remained in limbo, awaiting the necessary sanction for prosecution from the state government.

Despite persistent efforts by the ACB, which sought the prosecution sanction on multiple occasions, the Haryana government remained steadfast in its denial.

This administrative roadblock proved to be the pivotal factor in Dr. Singh’s discharge. Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction from the competent authority is mandatory for the prosecution of public servants.

The special court, presided over by Judge Rajeev Goyal, articulated strong disapproval of the government's stance.

In a damning observation, the court stated that the government’s decision to deny prosecution sanction was "arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, and perverse." However, despite this scathing critique, the court acknowledged the binding nature of the government’s order, leaving it with no option but to discharge Dr.

Singh from the case.

This development underscores a contentious aspect of India's legal framework regarding public servants and corruption. While designed to protect officials from frivolous charges, the provision for prosecution sanction can, in certain circumstances, be perceived as an impediment to justice.

The court's hands were tied, compelled to honor an executive decision even when it found that decision to be deeply flawed.

The discharge of Dr. Jaibir Singh effectively closes a chapter on a case that highlighted alleged corruption during a public health crisis. Yet, it simultaneously opens a broader discussion on governmental accountability and the integrity of the process designed to hold public officials responsible for their actions.

The incident leaves many wondering about the implications for future anti-corruption efforts and the pursuit of justice in similar high-stakes cases.