Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Corruption By Public Servants A Gigantic Problem, Eroding Confidence Of Common Man In Governance: Rajasthan HC

Posted in: Employment laws
Thu, May 11, 23, 10:21, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 6280
Madan Lal vs RajasthanIn such cases, no mercy can be shown to such persons who are indulged in grave misconduct and they are required to be dealt with iron hands in order to culminate the ills prevailing in the government departments today.

While displaying absolute zero tolerance for corruption by public servants, the Rajasthan High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Madan Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Ors in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8952/2022 and cited as [2023/RJJD/013897] that was delivered as recently as on May 8, 2023 and then downloaded on 09/05/2023 has dismissed an employee’s petition seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Office Superintendent in the Home Department. It must be mentioned here that the employee is facing disciplinary inquiry in connection with bribery allegations.

By the way, while dismissing the petition, the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that:
In such cases, no mercy can be shown to such persons who are indulged in grave misconduct and they are required to be dealt with iron hands in order to culminate the ills prevailing in the government departments today.

The Court further observed that corrupt officials have a demoralizing effect on honest public servants and corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. In addition, the Court also observed that any indulgence at this stage would be putting a premium on the misdeeds of the petitioner. This definitely cannot be allowed under any circumstances and so corrupt officials have to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and not allowed to get away lightly!

At the very outset, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur for the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para itself that:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

While dwelling on the prayers made for which the present writ petition has been filed are laid bare in the next para stating that:
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

 

  1. by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed not to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer 2022-2023 and further they be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Office Superintendent on and from the date person junior to the petitioner are so promoted with all congenital benefits.
     
  2. by an appropriate writ, order or directions, it may declared that the petitioner had already joined the duties on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer pursuance to the order dated 20.07.2020 (Annex.2) and further the FIR dated 08.08.2020 will not come in the way of the petitioner in granting promotion to the post of Additional Officer Superintendent against the vacancies of the year 2022-2023.


To put things in perspective, the Bench then while dwelling on the facts briefly envisages in the next para that:
Briefly, the facts to be noted in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC in the respondent-Department and thereafter, vide order dated 30.06.2015 he was promoted to the post of UDC. After promotion on the post of UDC, the case of the petitioner was further considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer against the vacancies of the year 2020-21 and the promotion order was issued on 20.07.2020, mentioning therein that the promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer will be made effective from 01.11.2020.

In the meantime, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 06.08.2020. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter was released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended and a departmental inquiry was instituted against him. The respondent-Department has now again initiated the promotion exercise for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer for the vacancies of the year 2022-23 and in the seniority list prepared on 14.06.2022, the name of the petitioner is reflected and the petitioner is shown as ‘Senior Assistant’.

On the one hand, the Bench then states in the next para that:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has already been promoted vide order dated 20.07.2020, therefore, showing the name of the petitioner as ‘Senior Assistant’ in the seniority list prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer for the vacancies of 2022-23 is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that in the seniority list prepared, the designation of the petitioner is shown as ‘Senior Assistant’, whereas he already stood promoted on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer vide order dated 20.07.2020. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be ordered to be promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer w.e.f. 01.11.2020 in pursuance of the promotion order dated 20.07.2020 for the vacancies of the year 2020-21. Alternatively, the learned counsel prays that the name of the petitioner may be kept in a sealed cover as the year of promotion could not be changed until the disciplinary inquiry is finalized against him.

On the other hand, the Bench then mentions in the next para of this notable judgment that:
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a bare perusal of the order dated 20.07.2020 shows that the promotion order was to be made effective w.e.f. 01.11.2020 and, thus, the petitioner was not allowed to join or work on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer w.e.f. 22.07.2020. She submits that after passing of the order dated 20.07.2020, the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case and thereafter, was sent to judicial custody. She submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension and the disciplinary inquiry is underway, therefore, presently the petitioner has no cause of action. She further submits that even no orders adverse to the petitioner have been passed by the respondents so far. She, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in the next para that:
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.

As it turned out, the Bench then points out in the next para of this robust judgment that:
The respondent-Department has issued an order on 20.07.2020, whereby the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer but the same was made effective from 01.11.2020. Thus, the Annex.3 showing the fact that petitioner had joined on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer on 22.07.2020 is of no consequence. The petitioner could not have been allowed to join on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer w.e.f. 22.07.2020 as the promotion was to be made effective w.e.f. 01.11.2020. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he already stood promoted and joined on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer is not sustainable and the same is rejected.

On a serious note, the Bench then observes in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that:
The promotional exercise which has been undertaken by the Department for filling up the vacancies of the year 2022-23 is for consideration of the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and since the petitioner had not joined or promoted on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer so far, therefore, his name has rightly been shown as ‘Senior Assistant’ in the seniority list prepared by the Department. The petitioner is facing disciplinary inquiry for a very serious misconduct and is placed under suspension. Thus, it is premature stage for this Court to take into account that what will be the fate of the inquiry and whether after culmination of the inquiry, the petitioner will be entitled to be considered for the vacancies of the year 2021-22. The same will depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary inquiry pending against him.

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench while taking potshots at the endemic corruption prevailing among government servants minces absolutely no words to hold unequivocally that:
This Court is at pains to note that corruption among Government Servants has become endemic and has been eroding the confidence of the common man in governance. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. Corrupt officials have a demoralising effect on honest public servants. Corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. Large-scale corruption retards nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end.

Most forcefully, the Bench then while displaying zero tolerance for those indulging in corruption mandates in the next para of this stimulating judgment holding that:
In the present case, this Court is primarily of the view that merely because the promotion year of the petitioner is 2020-21 and after passing of the order dated 20.07.2020 which was to be made effective from 01.11.2020, the petitioner was found involved in a serious misconduct and having involved in a bribe of huge amount running in lacs, therefore, any indulgence at this stage would be putting a premium on the misdeeds of the petitioner In such cases, no mercy can be shown to such persons who are indulged in grave misconduct and they are required to be dealt with iron hands in order to culminate the ills prevailing in the government departments today.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the final para of this brilliant judgment that:
In the opinion of this Court, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of any force and same is, therefore, dismissed.

By all accounts, one has to be gracious enough to concede candidly that the Rajasthan High Court has certainly very rightly, robustly, remarkably and rationally taken a very serious note of the increasing level of corruption in government departments by public servants which has become so endemic.

It also certainly merits no reiteration that the Court has also while taking a holistic view very rightly termed corruption by public servants a gigantic problem and most of all, it has also minced just no words to point out most emphatically that it erodes severely the confidence of common man in governance which can never serve our national interest and so definitely has to be nipped in the bud for which corrupt public servants must be made to face the strictest punishment.

There can be no gainsaying that our lawmakers must also definitely amend the existing laws on corruption without indulging in any dilly-dallying and in case of those public servants who amass crores of rupees by hook or crook must be mandatorily made to spent the remaining life in jail and not allowed to come up after spending just few years in jail as it makes a very big mockery of our legal system as we see most unfortunately right now and the cases also must be tried and decided within a very short span of time so that the corrupt is not able to escape scot free! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Delhi High Court in Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Regd) v Lt Governor of Delhi quashed its much-touted March 2017 order revising the minimum wages for all classes of workmen in scheduled employment, opining clearly and categorically that the same was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The unemployment is emerging as the biggest social problem. It takes away the massive share of the referendum, if any political party comes to this agenda.
Ambi Ram v State of Uttarakhand has taken a lenient view in a corruption case involving meager bribe amount on the ground that long pendency amounts to a special reason for imposing lesser penalty.
Tamil Nadu v/s G Hemalathaa strong message has been sent to all the High Courts by reiterating that in judicial service, the High Court can't modify/relax instructions issued by the Public Service Commission..
Rutman Law provides you with a team of experienced Employment Lawyers In Mississauga at your service. If you are experiencing any unfair dismissal, contact us for fair and square assistance. We will build a convincing legal case for you to help you get rightful justice in the matter. We make sure our clients get full recovery.
HP Disapproves Of Employees Managing Posting In And Around Urban Areas And Asks State To Break The Cartel
KK Agarwal vs Sanjiv Nandan Sahai Central Government for not appointing law member in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC] which is certainly most baffling! Why is law member not being appointed?
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee.
Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) recruitment to public services must command public confidence.
It is a matter of utmost serious concern that more and more states are now making laws for reserving jobs for locals.
Rajasthan vs Love Kush Meena held many times earlier also that acquittal based on a benefit of doubt in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime cannot make the candidate eligible for public employment.
Madhya Pradesh ruled by BJP this happened. Now again in BJP ruled Haryana we see this happening that 75% of jobs in private sectors
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
against the growing criminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on August 27, 2014 ruled very categorically that as the Constitution reposed great trust in the Prime Minister
A Hameed Hajee v. Keral trade is not more important than health has dismissed a petition seeking withdrawal of the weekend lockdowns imposed in the State amid the pandemic.
G Krishnegowda vs Karnataka even if an individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging public duty by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Seema Shakya v/s The Board of Secondary Education over the steep decline in the standard of education in primary schools in Government Sector has observed that salaries, allowances, and perquisites attached to the post of a primary teacher in the Government Sector should be attractive.
Sunil Hirasingh Rathod Vs Maharashtra the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused in the absence of proof of demand is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K Singh in First Appeal No. 1476 of 2007 has directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
There are many advanced methods of recruitment like automated communication applications, company review platforms, social media, virtual conference via video conferencing, AI for smooth hiring process, and application tracking systems, etc.
Rattan Lal Bharadwaj vs HP the provisions of ‘equal pay for equal work’ envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution is a constitutionally enforceable right.
Maharashtra v Ajay Ratansingh Parmar that mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Union of India vs M Duraisamy that of compulsory retirement observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can’t be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.
Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation that: The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one
Abhilash Kumar R vs Kerala Books and Publication Society that the right to pension is a constitutional right and that pensions cannot be paid to retired employees merely at the whims and fancies of the employers.
Pralhad Bhaurao Thale vs Union of India has refused to grant relief to a Head Constable who was found sleeping while on duty. The Court thus dismissed his plea challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement that was imposed upon him.
Murad Ali Sajan & UT of J&K that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; such position can be filled only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of UP that the criminal proceedings can be quashed when the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered does not disclose any acts of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime.
Javaid Ahmad Akhoon Vs J&K that the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a particular trade, however, such restrictions must not be unreasonable particularly when the same are aimed to regulate the trade of unemployed skilled youth of a troubled area.
Virendra K Singh Chauhan v. U.P. that: Once the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in the corporation for continuing the departmental proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner.
Abhay Kumar Kispotta v/s Chhattisgarh that providing 100% female reservation is unconstitutional. quashed the provisions of a law framed by the Chhattisgarh government which specified that only female candidates are eligible for direct recruitment to the posts of demonstrators, professors and principals in government nursing colleges.
Hari Singh vs Rajasthan that when rules prescribe certain code of conduct for government employees and bars them from leading an immoral life, the same cannot be violated on the ground that Indian mythology permits the same.
Chanchal Singh vs UOI that the refusal to undergo promotion cadre test disentitles defence personnel from the periodic financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
Shanti Devi vs Jharkhand that pension and gratuity benefits for employees cannot be withheld while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Top