Whether Judge can be dismissed on corruption charges from service without giving him opportunity to put his defence?

 It is also an accepted position that after the inquiry report
was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Administrative
Committee of the High Court, copy of the inquiry report was not
furnished to the appellant at that stage and no opportunity was
given to him to make his representation against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer. Instead the Administrative Committee accepted the
said report and only thereafter the copy of the inquiry report was

sent to the appellant along with show cause notice whereby the
appellant was asked to show cause as to why penalty of dismissal be
not inflicted upon him. It is clear from the above that the show
cause notice pertained only to the punishment insofar as the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are concerned, the
appellant was not given any opportunity before the said findings
were accepted by the Administrative Committee. Only, after the
submission of the reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary
authority considered the question of quantum of punishment.
Therefore, insofar as acceptance of findings of the Inquiry Officer
by the Administrative Committee without giving prior opportunity to
show cause against that is concerned, the appellant has been
prejudiced. We make this comment having regard to the
representation which was submitted by the appellant. A perusal of
the said representation reflects that the appellant had
specifically mentioned as to how the complainant had developed
grudge against him inasmuch as in various cases the complainant had
appeared before the appellant. Some of the orders which were passed
by the appellant in those cases were not of the liking of the
complainant and because of this reason the complainant had made the
complaint against the appellant. The appellant had also brought on
record the conduct of the said advocate/complainant who had been
indulging in the practice of making such complaints which have been
deprecated by the High Court also on previous occasions. The
appellant had also submitted that the other witnesses were close
relatives of the complainant and, therefore, they were the
interested witnesses. Obviously, this defense of the appellant was

not looked into by the Administrative Committee as the
Administrative Committee had already decided to accept the findings
without giving opportunity to the appellant to make a
representation against the inquiry report. We, therefore, are of
the firm opinion that non-grant of opportunity in the aforesaid
circumstances has also caused prejudice to the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not agree with the submissions
of the learned counsel for the respondent that no prejudice was
caused to the appellant and, therefore, reliance upon the judgments
of this Court in “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs.
Karunakar & Ors.” (1993)4 SCC 727 and “Haryana Financial
Corporation & Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja” (2008)9 SCC 31 is of
no avail to the respondents. On the contrary in these very
judgments it is held that non-grant of opportunity in respect of
the findings of the Inquiry Officer leads to violation of
principles of nature justice. Once this violation is found, coupled
with the fact that it has caused prejudice to the appellant as
well, those very judgments would rather support the case of the
appellant.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is allowed; the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1749/2019
(@ SLP(C) No. 15741/2018)


R. ALEXANDER Vs  REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT 

Dated:FEBRUARY 19, 2019.

Print Page

Prevention of corruption Amendment Act 2018

www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2018/187644.pdf

Print Page

Whether information regarding corruption can be disclosed under RTI?

 As mentioned above, the expression pertaining to allegation of

corruption cannot be exhaustively defined. The Act is to step-in-aid

to establish the society governed by law in which corruption has no

place. The Act envisages a transparent public office. Therefore, even

in organizations which are exempt from the provisions of the Act, in

terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4)of the Act, still

information which relates to corruption or the information which

excludes the allegation of corruption would be relevant information

and cannot be denied for the reasons that the organization is

exempted under the Act.

16. The information sought in the present case is in respect of the

number of vacancies which have fallen to the share of the specified

category and whether such posts have been filled up from amongst

the eligible candidates. If such information is disclosed, it will lead

to transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption. If

organization has nothing to hide or to cover a corrupt practice, the

information should be made available. The information sought may

help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness. Such

information is necessary for establishing the transparent

administration. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order

passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana and

affirmed by learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in the

present appeals.

Dismissed.”

Section 24 (4) of the Act is reproduced below:-

“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations:

xxx xxx xxx

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and

security organizations, being organizations established by the State

Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by

notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of

corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under

this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is

in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information

shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information

Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7,

such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the

date of the receipt of request.”

Thus, the Division Bench has held that even where the State

Government is empowered by issuance of notification to exempt certain

organizations from the applicability of the Act yet in respect of information

pertaining to allegation of corruption shall not be excluded under Sub

Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act.

In the present case as noticed the petitioner seeks the

information regarding the corruption and details of corruption cases

pertaining to the public servants in the State of Haryana. Keeping in view

the above principles laid down by the Division Bench in First Appellate

Authority-cum-Additional Director General of Police's case (supra) and

fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra

Deshpande's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of

the present case, this Court is of the opinion that order 2.4.2014 (Annexure

P/6) passed the respondent-Commission requires a revisit and cannot be

sustained.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order 2.4.2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondentCommission

is quashed. The respondent-Commission shall decide the

second appeal afresh keeping in view the above principles laid down by the

Division Bench in First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Director

General of Police's case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

 Civil Writ Petition No.17718 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.7.2016

Subhash 

V

State Information Commission, Haryana and others 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR(JOURNAL)43

Print Page

Whether documents relating to corruption in government office can be denied under RTI?

 The information sought in the present case is in respect of the
number of vacancies which have fallen to the share of the specified
category and whether such posts have been filled up from amongst
the eligible candidates. If such information is disclosed, it will lead
to transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption. If
organization has nothing to hide or to cover a corrupt practice, the
information should be made available. The information sought may
help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness. Such
information is necessary for establishing the transparent

administration. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana and
affirmed by learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in the
present appeals.
Dismissed.”
Section 24 (4) of the Act is reproduced below:-
“24. Act not to apply to certain organizations:

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and
security organizations, being organizations established by the State
Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of
corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under
this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is
in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information
shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information
Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7,
such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the
date of the receipt of request.”
Thus, the Division Bench has held that even where the State
Government is empowered by issuance of notification to exempt certain
organizations from the applicability of the Act yet in respect of information
pertaining to allegation of corruption shall not be excluded under Sub
Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act.
In the present case as noticed the petitioner seeks the
information regarding the corruption and details of corruption cases
pertaining to the public servants in the State of Haryana. Keeping in view
the above principles laid down by the Division Bench in First Appellate
Authority-cum-Additional Director General of Police's case (supra) and

fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of
the present case, this Court is of the opinion that order 2.4.2014 (Annexure
P/6) passed the respondent-Commission requires a revisit and cannot be
sustained.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order 2.4.2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondentCommission
is quashed. The respondent-Commission shall decide the
second appeal afresh keeping in view the above principles laid down by the
Division Bench in First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Director
General of Police's case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
 Civil Writ Petition No.17718 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.7.2016
Subhash ..
V
State Information Commission, Haryana and others .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Print Page

When making allegations of corruption and bias against Judge amounts contempt of court?

Every citizen has a fundamental right to speech,
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Contempt of Court is one of the restrictions on such
right. We are conscious that the power under the Act has
to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. If
there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary,
the Courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the
offender for committing contempt. We approve the

findings recorded by the High Court that the Appellants
have transgressed all decency by making serious
allegations of corruption and bias against the High Court.
The caustic comments made by the Appellants cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be termed as fair criticism.
The statements made by the Appellants, accusing the
judiciary of corruption lower the authority of the Court.
The Explanation to sub-Section 12 (1) of the Act provides
that an apology should not be rejected merely on the
ground that it is qualified or tendered at a belated stage,
if the accused makes it bona fide. The stand taken by the
Appellants in the contempt petition and the affidavit filed
in this Court does not inspire any confidence that the
apology is made bona fide. After a detailed consideration
of the submissions made by both sides and the evidence
on record, we are in agreement with the judgment of the
High Court that the Appellants are guilty of committing
contempt of Court.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2006
HET RAM BENIWAL & ORS.

V
RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS.
Dated:October 21, 2016

Print Page

Whether court should decide in case of prevention of corruption Act case at initial stage that accused is not public servant?

As we notice, the High Court has really been swayed by the concept of Article 12 of the Constitution, the provisions contained in the 1949 Act and in a mercurial manner taking note of the fact that the multi-state society is not controlled or aided by the Government has arrived at the conclusion. In our considered opinion, even any grant or any aid at the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any structural concept or any aspect would be an aid. We are inclined to think so as the term 'aid' has not been defined. A sprinkle of aid to the society will also bring an employee within the definition of 'public servant'. The concept in entirety has to be understood in the backdrop of corruption. In Shri Ram Singh (supra), this Court had to say this:

Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence--shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.

 We share the said perception, and reiterate with agony. The ingemination has to be realized with sanctity. Therefore, we are of the convinced opinion that it was entirely unnecessary on the part of the High Court to enter into elaborate deliberation to arrive at the conclusion that the Respondent was not a public servant. Regard being had to the facts of the case, we think it would be apposite that it is left to be dealt with in the course of trial whether the society concerned has ever been granted any kind of aid or not.

Citation: AIR2016SC1377, 2016ALLMR(Cri)1351,(2016)4 SCC417,2016 CRLJ2031

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2009

Decided On: 15.12.2015

Appellants: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Brijlal Sadasukh Modani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and A.K. Goel, JJ.

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for corruption if there is no demand for bribe?

The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-chief stated so, in the cross-examination turned round and stated that the accused never asked any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence underSection 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. 

Supreme Court of India

N.Sunkanna vs State Of A.P on 14 October, 2015

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan

REPORTABLE

Print Page

Whether court can grant anticipatory bail when there are allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds?

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and after considering the gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released for rural development, and further considering the conduct of the appellants and the fact that the investigation is held up as the custodial interrogation of the appellants could not be done due to the anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the same. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail, passed by the High Court.

Sudhir Vs. State of Maharashtra and another

[Criminal Appeal Nos.1286-1287 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 1753-54 of 2015]

Dated;October 01, 2015.

Print Page

Whether court can take lenient view in corruption case on the ground that less amount of bribe taken?

 In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642, it has been observed that:-
“... corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal
will to progress, accelerates undeserved
ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory
of the institutions, paralyses the economic health
of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and
mars the marrows of governance. It is worth
noting that immoral acquisition of wealth
destroys the energy of the people believing in
honesty, and history records with agony how they
have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that
collective sensibility respects such suffering as it
is in consonance with the constitutional
morality.”
In the said case, it has also been observed that the
degree of corruption is immaterial. In the case at hand, as
we perceive, the delinquent employee has harboured the
notion that when the cancerous growth has affected the
system, he can further allow it to grow by covering it like an
octopus, with its tentacles disallowing any kind of surgical
operation or treatment so that the lesion continues. The
whole act is reprehensible and such a situation does not
even remotely commend any lenience.
 Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2038 OF 2012
U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.
 V
Gopal Shukla & Anr.
Dated;September 1, 2015.
Dipak Misra, J.
Citation: 2015(9)SCALE567

Print Page

Whether enquiry/verification prior to lodging of FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act is permissible?

 For that purpose first I like to deal with the aspect whether the enquiry/verification made prior to lodging of FIR is permissible under law or not. Upon receipt of source report dated 23.5.2004 the Anti Corruption Bureau first ascertained the fact and enquired into with regard to the contents of the source report dated 23.5.2004 and upon verification of the contents of the complaint the FIR was lodged.

65. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after enquiry and verification if any charge sheet containing the gist of the enquiry lodged the FIR, this tantamount of charge sheet under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

66. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. speaks about the report of police officer on completion of investigation. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the moment the investigation is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government.

67. By bare perusal of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. it reveals that it is a report/challan, which is filed by the police officer after completion of investigation. Herein the instant case as submitted by learned AAG that to take abandoned caution to verify the genuineness of the complaint filed against the person they first inquired into the matter and after ascertaining the fact and allegations alleged in the complaint, only thereafter, Anti Corruption Bureau lodged the FIR.

68. This is not on the basis of internal arrangement but also on the basis of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The enquiry and the verification is permitted prior to lodging of FIR.

69. Upon perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520 it appears that if the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner.

He further submits that nothing illegality has been committed while lodging the FIR against the petitioner for offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anti Corruption Bureau on receipt of source information, undertakes the verification of the general reputation of the concerned person against whom such information is received. In the present case, during the course of verification of the source information report, the Anti Corruption Bureau found the general reputation of the petitioner to the effect that he has been habitually accepting and obtaining illegal gratification and agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain such gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as has been mentioned in Section 7 of the Act in lieu of giving favourable judgments. It is, therefore, not necessary that FIR under Section 13 shall be lodged only if a person has been convicted in the past for any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Two cases have been registered against the petitioner, which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner was habitual of receiving illegal gratification.

46. Mr. Rafiq further submits that verification in enquiry before lodging the FIR is only to avoid frivolous complaint and to prevent maligning the reputation of a particular person against whom the complaint is received by the Anti Corruption Department and upon verification only the FIR is being lodged. This is done only because the Anti Corruption Bureau received so many complaints and in the interest of person concerned it is necessary to first ascertain and verify the fact whether the contents of the complaint is correct or not.

Rajasthan High Court

Ravi Shankar Srivastava vs State Of Raj. And Ors. on 9 February, 2005

Equivalent citations: RLW 2005 (3) Raj 1736, 2005 (2) WLC 612

Print Page