Moreover, in reply to an application sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the department, while backing one such employee who was convicted more than a year ago on charges of corruption, has taken the defence that no action has been taken against him since the department has not been able to collect the copy of the judgment.

This information was given by the department against an application filed by an advocate H C Arora. The advocate had demanded the list of employees who had been convicted on charges of corruption and the action taken against them. With the list, the department also gave some interesting replies which reveal their inaction and callous attitude.

As per Supreme Court judgments, an employee convicted on corruption charges cannot be retained in service, unless the conviction itself is stayed by the superior court in appeal. The information supplied to the advocate does not seem to suggest this dicta of the apex court was uniformly applied to all the convicted employees. Certain convicted employees were allowed to retire despite their conviction by court. How this feat was performed by the board was also not disclosed by the Public Information Officer (PIO)-cum-Deputy Secretary of the board, in his letter dated December 26, 2007, to Arora.

However, the department seems to have an altogether different approach towards its corrupt and convicted employees. Here are some employees to whom the department’s loyalty went overboard:

Jarnail Singh, Revenue Assistant, convicted on January 16, 2003, and awarded two years’ imprisonment, peacefully retired on August 31, 2006.

Balbir Singh, Junior Engineer (JE), who was convicted on March 23, 2004 and awarded one year imprisonment, gracefully retired on January 31, 2007. A similar treatment was meted out to Rajinder Verma, Superintendent, Govindgarh, convicted on August 16, 2005, and awarded one-and-half years’ imprisonment, but retired on September 30, 2006. Thus, these two employees were able to escape dismissal from service.

There are also certain convicted employees who are still continuing in service.

A classic case is of Kamaljit Singh, Junior Engineer, and Sher Singh, Assistant Linesman, both convicted on October 17, 2006, and awarded two years’ imprisonment each. When questioned about the action taken against them, the department has taken a rather surprising stand, stating it has not been able to collect the copy of the judgment. The PIO states in his letter that “CE/DS South Patiala has informed vide a memo dated September 30, 2007, that the copy of the decision/ judgment has not been received so far. Efforts are being made to collect the same through DS Circle, Mohali, as well as DS Division, Zirakpur.”

In the case of Resham Singh, JE, Jallandhar, who was convicted on August 18, 2006, and awarded three years by JMIC, Jallandhar, the PIO informs “detailed information of the case is not available with PSEB. The information can only be supplied on receipt of complete facts/particulars of the case.”. Or take the case of Balwant Singh, JE, who was convicted and awarded a sentence of two years on February 2, 2005, by Special Judge, Hoshiarpur. The PIO says “Information awaited from West Zone, Bathinda. Reminder issued vide this office memo dated November 29, 2007.”