M A I N   N E W S

Corruption Cases
Sound proof must to fire employees: SC
R Sedhuraman
Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, June 6
Reaffirming that dismissal from service is the only punishment for corrupt government employees, the Supreme Court has, however, clarified that a charge of this grave nature should be “proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt” for taking the extreme step.

“…a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt,” an apex court bench, comprising Justices Mukundakam Sharma and BS Chauhan, ruled in a verdict on May 28.

The court came out with the view while directing the Railways to pay within three months “50 per cent of the pay and allowances” to an employee, dismissed from service about 30 years ago. The Railways had removed Gyan Chand Chattar, a cashier, on the charges of corruption, playing cards while on duty, unauthorised travel by first class and refusing to accept memos. The accused had attained the age of retirement when the case was pending before the Gujarat High Court.

The Union Government had come to the Supreme Court in 2003, challenging the HC’s verdict that had also directed a similar payment to the dismissed employee.

A Railway inquiry had found him guilty of demanding “one per cent commission” for making some payments to fellow employees, but the apex court ruled that the charge was based on “hearsay statement” and “does not reveal as who was the person who had been asked” to pay the bribe.

“It’s an admitted position that if a charge of corruption is proved, no punishment other than dismissal can be awarded,” the judgment, written by Justice Chauhan for the bench, clarified. “But the charges (of this nature) should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively.

“Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statue defining the misconduct.”