A recent decision by the Punjab government to reinstate two senior Vigilance Bureau officers, months after their suspension on grave corruption charges, has ignited a fierce political storm across the state. This move, which includes treating their period of suspension as “duty time,” has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties and raises significant questions about the consistency and credibility of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government’s much-touted anti-corruption stance.
The officers in question, Harpreet Singh Mander, PPS, formerly Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, and Swarandeep Singh, PPS, formerly Assistant Inspector General (AIG), Vigilance Bureau, SAS Nagar, were suspended on April 25, 2025. Their suspension was part of a larger statewide crackdown on alleged irregularities in regional transport authority (RTA) offices and driving test centers, a campaign that the AAP-led government had vociferously projected as a major stride in its fight against corruption. At the time of their suspension, along with the then-Vigilance Bureau Chief S.P.S. Parmar (an IPS officer who remains suspended), the government cited “grave misconduct and dereliction of duty” under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The operation had reportedly uncovered a widespread bribery network, where middlemen allegedly took bribes to manipulate test results or expedite approvals for driving licenses without proper testing, even involving proxy drivers for tests.
However, in a dramatic reversal, orders issued by the Department of Home Affairs, signed by Additional Chief Secretary Alok Shekhar, formally revoked the suspension of both Harpreet Singh Mander and Swarandeep Singh with immediate effect. Moreover, the orders explicitly stated that their period of suspension would be treated as a “duty period,” a decision that effectively negates any punitive financial or service-related consequences of their suspension. Harpreet Singh Mander has been reinstated to his previous position as SSP, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, while Swarandeep Singh will assume the charge of Assistant Inspector General, Flying Squad, Vigilance Bureau, SAS Nagar.
This sudden reinstatement, without any public explanation from the Punjab government regarding the reversal or the resolution of the initial corruption charges, has triggered a wave of outrage and speculation. Partap Singh Bajwa, the Congress leader and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Punjab, wasted no time in launching a scathing attack on the government. “First, the AAP Punjab government suspended senior Vigilance Bureau officers, claiming a crackdown on corruption. Now, they’re reinstated in the same posts, and the suspension period is not even counted. Both decisions can’t be right,” Bajwa asserted, highlighting the glaring inconsistency in the government’s actions. He went further, alleging that the initial suspension might have been politically motivated. “Did AAP suspend them to make them fall in line, and now they’ve complied? This isn’t governance. It’s intimidation,” he contended, implying a behind-the-scenes maneuver rather than a genuine anti-corruption drive.
Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia echoed similar sentiments, expressing dismay that officers deemed “corrupt” barely three weeks prior had been quietly reinstated. “This raises serious questions — either about the officers’ integrity or the government’s,” Majithia remarked, adding a sharp edge to the criticism. He too suggested a political angle, alleging that the officials were initially expected to act against political opponents but failed to comply with the government’s demands, leading to their suspension. “Now, a deal seems to have been struck,” Majithia claimed, hinting at a compromise that led to their reinstatement. He also demanded a public apology from the government and the reinstatement of SPS Parmar, arguing that his case was no different from the officers who had been brought back.
The most striking aspect of this entire episode, which has puzzled senior bureaucrats and police officers alike, is the continued suspension of SPS Parmar, who was the Chief Director of the Vigilance Bureau at the time the alleged scam was unearthed. Critics question the logic: if the officers directly involved in the field-level operations (Mander and Singh) have been cleared and reinstated, how can their supervisory officer (Parmar) remain solely responsible and under suspension? This apparent inconsistency has fueled speculation about selective accountability and a lack of transparency in the government’s decision-making process. The Centre has formally approved Parmar’s suspension and has directed the Punjab government to issue him a chargesheet by June 26, indicating that the allegations against him are still being pursued.
The Aam Aadmi Party came to power in Punjab on a strong anti-corruption platform, promising to eradicate corruption from public life. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has frequently reiterated his government’s “zero-tolerance policy” towards corruption. The initial suspensions were showcased as evidence of this commitment. However, the sudden reinstatement of these officers without a clear explanation or a public declaration of their exoneration undermines the very foundation of that promise. It creates a perception that the government’s anti-corruption drive might be more about political leverage than about genuine systemic reform.
The lack of a public explanation for the reversal adds fuel to the fire of opposition criticism. Transparency in governance is paramount, especially when dealing with allegations of corruption against public servants. The public has a right to know the basis for such a significant shift in policy, particularly when it concerns officials of the Vigilance Bureau, which is meant to be the vanguard of anti-corruption efforts. The absence of a formal response from the Punjab government regarding the corruption charges that led to the officers’ initial suspension further deepens the mystery and raises questions about accountability.
This incident also brings into focus the broader challenges of tackling corruption within the civil services. While suspensions are often a preliminary step to ensure a fair investigation and prevent interference, the subsequent actions, including reinstatement, must be seen as transparent and justifiable. If officers are suspended on serious charges only to be reinstated without a clear resolution of those charges, it risks demoralizing honest officers, emboldening the corrupt, and eroding public confidence in the integrity of the administrative system.
The controversy surrounding the reinstatement of these two senior Vigilance Bureau officers will undoubtedly continue to resonate in Punjab’s political landscape. It serves as a critical test of the Bhagwant Mann government’s commitment to its core promise of combating corruption and maintaining transparency in public administration. The public and the opposition will continue to demand clear answers regarding the reversal of these suspensions and the ultimate fate of the corruption charges that led to them.