Embezellement of Public funds - Surya Kant Judge High Court, Chandigarh.

Following is copy of my letter of Complaint of Corruption against Justice Surya Kant u/s 3(2) of Judges protection Act sent to appropriate Authorities for appropriate action as per law. The following document is public record.

To,            Date; March 23, 2013

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

SUB:           Petition under Article 124(4), R/W Article 217(b) and 218 of the Constitution and judges Enquiry Act for removal of Justice Surya Kant, as Judge, Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh for embezzlement and theft of assets from companies in Liquidation in connivance with DP Ojha, official Liquidator.

Sir,

On receipt of specific information, I informed vide my Letter Dt 23.09.2011, (CA 580/11-Annexure A), about massive embezzlement of crores of rupees by DP Ojha, Official Liquidator, in the name of Employees who have never been born. The factum was proved six months later by inquiry report, Dt 19.3.2012 which states; “In the Committee meeting held on 12.3.2012 it was admitted by representative of Security agency and Official Liquidator that names and permanent addresses of security staff deployed by security agency were never supplied to official Liquidator as per the terms and conditions of empanelment of security agencies accepted by the Security agency”.  (Annexure B/ Anx-a to report). The claim amount was Rs 1.5 Crores. (COCP 2085/11 renumbered CP 53/12). The above report is only in one company. There are over 100 Companies. In all cases payments have been made in name of employees who have never been born, proving massive scam in H High Court.

In same letter Dt 23.9.2011 in Para E, I had also informed that DP Ojha, is also committing theft of assets from Companies in Liquidation in nexus with security agencies. Theft was proved One year later vide minutes Dt 14.12.12 (Annexure C) OLR 2/13 states in para 6; “No security staff was present at the site and no assets were lying in the premises”. The present valuation is 2.84 Crores. (Annexure D). This above report is only in one company. There are over 100 companies under Company Judge and DP Ojha.

This is tip of an iceberg. Actual theft and embezzlement could be of Rs 50 crores, or upto Rs 500 crores. Actual can be established by comparison of inventory of assets made before 25.7.07 and as of now and detailed investigation of payments by H High Court without ID proofs as required by norms. 

Massive theft and embezzlement is not possible without connivance and conspiracy of some officials of High Court i.e. Company Judge Justice Surya Kant, Sunil Choudhary Registrar – Judicial and Jagjit Singh Superintendent.

Evidence against Justice Surya kant

My letter Dt 23.9.2011 required independent investigation by CBI, which can only be ordered on judicial side. Senior Company Judge orders that my letter Dt 23.9.2011, be listed on judicial side.  It is numbered as CA 580/2011. Matter is listed before Junior Company Judge, Justice Surya Kant.

16.11.2011         letter is written to Registrar Judicial not to list CA 580/11 relating to embezzlement and theft before Justice Surya Kant. Annexure E.

9.12.2011  i)      Justice Surya Kant issues contempt notice in CA 580/11 to me. Annexure F. A fair judge would have ordered enquiry. A guilty mind curbs it. He clearly wanted to prevent me from pursuing and investigating the theft and embezzlement. No action has been taken by Justice Surya Kant since 9.12.2011 against prime accused DP Ojha. Rather action was taken against me for giving information, which points to one and only one direction. He is in nexus with DP Ojha and security agency and he wanted me to desist from pursuing this matter. I continued to persist with my investigation. Subsequent events proved truth of my information and nefarious designs of his criminal contempt. His order of FIR in OLR 2/13 is eyewash. He is capable of giving different oral orders.

11.1.2012  ii)      Justice Surya Kant passes two orders of same date in COCP 2085/11(CP 53/12) which conduct is suspicious, lacks bona fide and proves his nexus, connivance and collusion with security agency and DP Ojha. Embezzlement of crores of rupees in name of employees who have never been born was proved vide report Annexure B in COCP 2085/11.

iii)     During hearing, he continuously asked the secured creditor to make payment orally as well in writing. This was inspite of fact that no ID Proofs had been filed. Only a person having criminal nexus would order payments without ID proofs.

13.7.2012  iv)     Justice Surya Kant directed secured creditor to take possession within one day in order to prevent making of inventory at the time of taking over. If inventory is made at later stage DP Ojha and security agency will get benefit of doubt.

       

7.12.2012  vi)     I wrote Letter to Registrar General to ensure that report Anx B remains on the file as there was doubts on conduct of Registrar Judicial – Sh Sunil Choudhary and Spdt Jagjit Singh. Letter was taken to Justice Surya Kant who filed it vide order Dt 23.1.2013 (Annexure G) after a delay of more than a month which delay is suspicious.  After filing, Justice kant marked it to Sunil Choudhary. Letter was never put up to Registrar General to whom it was addressed. The whole conduct shows some active connivance between Justice Kant and Sunil Choudhary vis-a-vis dealings of file of COCP 2085/11(CP 53/12). Records of COCP 2085/11(CP 53/12) proved attempted embezzlement in name of employees who have never been born. My perseverance prevented embezzlement in this case so far.

23.1.2013  vii)    On my letter Dt 7.12.2012, Justice Surya Kant wrote that I KD Aggarwal has no concern with CP 53/12 (COCP 2085/11). (Annexure G). Justice Surya Kant committed perjury. Justice Surya Kant attached his own order Dt 11.1.2012 in COCP 2085/11(CP 53/12) as Crl Misc in CROCP 1/12 filed by him against me. His order of 23.1.2013 is factually reverse of his order dt 11.1.2012 proving that he is lying in one of them. Why would Justice Surya Kant lie? A casual perusal of copy of CP 53/12 from a friend reveals that I, KD Aggarwal is mentioned in Para 13, 14, 15 of CP 53/12 and Para 19 onwards of reply. My letters are annexed by parties. His statement on record that I have no concern with CP 53/12 is patent lie on record amounting to perjury. (COCP 2085/11-CP53/12 was filed as the payment was stopped by secured creditor after I pointed out about embezzlement in name of employees who have never been born, hence my name and documents are part of CP 53/12.)

Evidence against Sunil Choudhary Registrar Judicial

I filed application dt 27.4.2012 before Inspection branch for inspection of file of COCP 2085/11 (CP 53/12). Sunil Choudhary made recommendations declining me inspection of above file. He concealed following material facts;-

a)     High Court rules and orders; Vol 5, Chapter 5, Part A, Rule 3 clearly states that every person who is not a party to case can inspect the file of any pending case by special order of the Judge. O 1 R 10 CPC cannot be made redundant / quashed by Registrar (J) i.e. Sunil Chaoudhry. Even LDC of H High Court knows that permission is a formality and is required only if one is not a party as otherwise it is not required. He negated provisions of Order 1 rule 10 CPC.

b)     COCP is form of execution. Record reveals that my POA is on record of original case which fact Sunil Choudhary concealed in his notings.

c)     Records reveals that there are 2 orders on file Dt 11.1.2012 and one of them is on record of CROCP 1/12 against me which fact was known to Sunil Coudhary as the files were with him and he concealed the same in his notings on my letter Dt 27.4.2012.

d)     Sunil Choudhary has kept both the files being CP 53/12 and CROCP 1/12 with him (being inter connected) which fact he concealed in his 1st notings. This information is available in the notings of COCP branch on my letter Dt 27.4.2012.

e)     I am the whistleblower of scam involving public money and my name is part of the records of CP 53/12(COCP 2085/11). Recommending withholding inspection to me indicates ulterior motives on the part of Sunil Choudhary and dealing Supdt jagjit Singh.

f)      When above facts were brought to notice of Registrar General vide letter

Dt 7.12.2012, it was put up to Justice Surya Kant who filed it vide order Dt 23.1.2013. There was delay of more than a month which is suspicious. Justice Surya Kant did not mention nor denied any facts. Justice kant marked it to Sunil Choudhary. Letter was never put up to Registrar General to whom it was addressed. 

Evidence against Jagjit Singh Superintendent Liquidation

Jagjit Singh Supdt was dealing assistant and Supdt during the period when unauthorized payments were made to unauthorized persons i.e. payments to persons was made which were over and above the norms approved by Hon’ble High court for valuers and who were not even on the approved list. Similarly crores of rupees have been allowed to be paid to security agencies in name of persons who were never even born by not ensuring compliance of conditions of their empanelment i.e ID proofs. Reports of thefts and complaints against DP Ojha were/are dealt by him. He is in the know of everything. He would not have remained silent if he was not a part the scam.

It is therefore prayed;

1.     That case FIR be lodged against Justice Surya kant of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sunil Choudhary Registrar Judicial, Jagjit Singh Superintendent Liquidation branch  and procedure under Judges Enquiry Act be invoked for removal removal of Justice Surya Kant as Judge Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2.     Suo moto Criminal contempt of Court proceedings be initiated against Justice Surya Kant for indulging in ordinary criminal activities of theft and financial scam while sitting as Judge of high Court thereby lowering the dignity of this Court.

3.     Disciplinary action be taken against other High Court employees involved.

KD Aggarwal

Advocate.