Systematic corruption is a human rights' violation in itself - Central Excise Superintendent loses in Supreme Court
ON 8.1.1999, a Special Case was registered against the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act 1988, alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to his disclosed source of income which was to the extent of Rs. 7,64,368/-
The trial court concluded the trial and convicted the Superintendent and awarded him a sentence of two years, along with a fine of Rs.1lakh and, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months, vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2007.
Subsequent to his conviction, the Superintendent was put under suspension by the competent authority vide order dated 1.11.2007 and was served a show-cause notice dated 25.1.2008, to explain that in view of his conviction for the offence punishable, why he should not be dismissed from service, in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The Superintendent approached the High Court requesting that during the pendency of his appeal against the said impugned judgment, the order of conviction against him be suspended. The said application of suspension of conviction has been allowed vide impugned order dated 8.4.2008.
The CBI took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that, "the Appellate Court in an exceptional case, may put the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but such power must be exercised with great circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the Court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The Court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of action by it. The court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done."
The High Court had held, "As the applicant would suffer serious prejudice on account of order of dismissal, the applicant is justified in applying to this Court for suspending the order of conviction so that the Department shall not precipitate the matter further."
The Supreme Court was not impressed and observed, "Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption. It was certainly not the case where damage if done, could not be undone as the employee/respondent if ultimately succeeds, could claim all consequential benefits."
So, the High Court order is set aside.
This means:
1. If a Government servant is convicted in a corruption case, his conviction will not be suspended just because he would lose his job.
2. If he is convicted, he would lose his job. Not suspension, but dismissal.
3. He can get his job back if he ultimately succeeds - twenty years later.
Is corruption worth the risk? And these are days not very favourable to the corrupt - the ones who are caught that is.
We bring you this Supreme Court order today. Please see