SC: Most Severe Penalty Ought to be Imposed on Acts of Corruption

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

A full bench comprised of Justice N.V Ramana, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Surya Kant heard this case. It was held that systematic corruption and its blatant cover-up attract major penalties such as dismissal from service. These are provided under Article 311 of the Constitution.

Brief Facts of the Case

The appellant is a sub-inspector with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Mumbai in the Crime and Intelligence Wing. He was in charge of conducting surprise searches of personnel and taking strict action against anyone indulging in corruption.

A constable was found with an amount of unaccountable cash in suspicious circumstances. The appellant interfered in the said incident. There are three charges levelled against the appellant. First, misconduct and indiscipline by the ordering of a false entry in the unaccounted cash register. Second, for becoming an extraconstitutional authority by issuing unlawful orders to give a false statement. And third, corruption for collecting bribes from contractors through his subordinates. The disciplinary authority dismissed the Appellant from service. The departmental appellant authority and the High Court of Bombay dismissed his appeals. Hence, this appeal has been filed.

Appellant’s Arguments

The enquiry officer put his questions to the prosecution witness. He also cross-examined the witnesses brought forth by the defence. This amounts to making the prosecutor the judge. It violates the natural justice principle of “Nemo judex in sua causa” (no one should be the judge in its cause). The appellant has 21 years of remaining service. Hence, the imposition of the severest punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and shocks the conscience of the Court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The present proceedings constituted the fifth venue where the Appellant was pleading his case. The first four and the CBI had found him guilty. The counsel contended that the Supreme Court is a constitutional court. It ought not to act as appellate authorities against disciplinary proceedings of government employees. The delicate nature of employment in paramilitary forces and breach of the high trust reposed in him by society justified dismissal of the appellant from service.

Court’s Observations

First, the Bench examined the scope of the Court to examine service matters. The power of judicial review discharged by Constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or an appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It is, thus, well settled that the Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is under the limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.

In the case of disciplinary proceedings, the Courts only interfere on grounds of proportionality. This can be when the punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of the Court is shocked. Thus, the imposition of a major penalty (like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and impermissible for trivial misdeeds. But for grave offences, there is a need to send a clear message of deterrence to society.

The Bench checked the appropriateness of the procedure carried. Under Section 165, Evidence Act, judges have the power to ask any question to any witness or party about any fact. This is important to discover or to get proper proof of relevant facts. Although strict rules of evidence are inapplicable to disciplinary proceedings, enquiry officers can put questions to witnesses in such proceedings to discover the truth.

As no specific question of the officer was pointed for bias, the Bench dismissed the objection as being an afterthought. The Bench examined the effect of a criminal enquiry on disciplinary proceedings. It observed that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings. Evidence obtained through civil proceedings may not be enough to take away liberty under the criminal law jurisprudence.

In a disciplinary enquiry, strict rules of evidence and procedure of a criminal trial are inapplicable. Thus, the Bench rejected the appellant’s contention of exoneration in the present proceedings in the absence of a criminal charge sheet by the CBI after enquiry. The employer always retains the right to conduct an independent disciplinary proceeding. This is irrespective of the outcome of a criminal proceeding. In conclusion, the Bench dismissed the argument of the appellant. Punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the allegation of corruption.

Court’s Decision

The appellant has been proven of the charges of corruption, fabrication, and intimidation. Hence, the punishment of dismissal from service is appropriate.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -