Delhi HC Dismisses Ex-Registrar’s Plea in Haryana Judicial Paper Leak Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the charges framed against him by the Sessions Court in Chandigarh in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) paper leak case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld the arguments presented by Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for UT-Chandigarh, with the assistance of Advocate Amit Sahni. The court declined to intervene in the charge order issued by the District and Sessions Judge in Chandigarh under sections 409/420/120-B, 201 IPC, and Section 8, 9, 13(1) (d) read with Section 1(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station-3, Chandigarh.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Sharma dismissed the revision petition, asserting that the court did not identify any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order of the trial court.

The unique circumstances of this case involve the filing of the FIR by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on September 15, 2017, following a plea by a candidate named Suman. The Supreme Court transferred the matter to Delhi in 2021 by allowing the transfer petition filed by the accused former Registrar Balwinder Kumar Sharma.

According to the prosecution, the Chandigarh Police initiated an FIR based on the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, addressing the leakage of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination in 2017.

Bakhshi argued before the Delhi High Court that this is a straightforward case, contending that the accused, being a public servant, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted the question paper for his use. The petitioner allegedly allowed co-accused Sunita access to the paper. Consequently, the accused is accused of committing the offense under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Advocate Bakhshi further emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the constant communication between the accused parties via mobile phones, and the petitioner’s possession of the HCS (Judicial) Paper. There is substantial material, including documentary and electronic evidence, against the accused, which should not be disregarded at this early stage.

It was argued that the scope of interference in revision is limited to evaluating serious illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the challenged order, and the petition was prayed to be dismissed.

The Delhi High Court, in dismissing the petition, noted that “the record also indicates that the petitioner had the question paper immediately before the alleged leakage.”