AP High Court Comes down heavily on Corruption
AS Corruption has become a hot topic of late, we bring you a very recent High Court judgement which had some sharp comments on corruption. And the issue was selling of blank shipping bills at Rs. 150/ each. The High Court approved the revocation of the CHA licence and held that the act of corruption is relevant and not the quantum.
Extracts from the rather strong judgement:
++ While issuance of signed blank shipping bills would, by itself, amount to negligence on the part of the CHA, their doing so for a consideration of Rs.150/- per shipping bill is an act of corruption. It is in this context that the proportionality of punishment imposed on the respondent, and the scope and amplitude of this doctrine, is required to be examined.
++ It should be borne in mind that, in disciplinary matters, the Commissioner is responsible for the happenings in the Customs area, and for the discipline to be maintained thereat. If he takes a decision necessary for that purpose, the CESTAT would, ordinarily, not interfere on the basis of its own notions of the difficulties likely to be faced by the CHA or their employees. The decision is best left to the disciplinary authority save in exceptional cases where the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate or is mala fide .
++ In cases involving corruption there cannot be any punishment lesser than the maximum i.e., revocation of the license. No other lesser punishment can be contemplated in such cases.
++ it must be borne in mind that a single act of corruption is sufficient to award the maximum penalty which, under the CHALR, is of revocation of the license.
++ In an appeal, preferred against an order imposing punishment under the CHALR, the CESTAT should not be swayed by considerations of misplaced sympathy.
++ No indulgence can be shown to persons indulging in acts of corruption.
++ The punishment imposed on the respondent, by the Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in the light of the grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, is justified.