RAM LAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE GOVT. OF U P
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
Section 13 - Criminal misconduct by a public servant
Section 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Writ Petition (Civil), 933 of 2014, Judgment Date: Nov 17, 2015
A public servant in a democracy should be a guardian of morals. He
is entrusted with higher responsibilities of a public office and they
contribute their best for the just and humane society. We feel that for
effective functioning of a democracy, the role of Executive is very
important. Civil servants and public officials are expected to maintain
and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence by demonstrating the high
standards of professional competence, efficiency and effectiveness by
upholding the Constitution and rule of law, keeping in mind the advancement
of public good at all times. Public employment being a public trust, the
improper use of the public position for personal advantage is considered as
a serious breach of trust. With the changing times, the role of Executive
and expectation of the citizens in governance also underwent tremendous
change.
If the corrupt public servant is not punished, then it will have
a negative impact on the honest public servants who will be discouraged and
demoralized. Some upright officers resist corruption but they cannot alone
change the system which victimizes them through frequent punitive
transfers, threat to their families and fabricating, foisting false cases.
In such a scenario, until and unless we maintain a fine balance
between prosecuting a guilty officer and protecting an innocent officer
from vexatious, frivolous and mala fide prosecution, it would be very
difficult for the public servant to discharge his duties in free and fair
manner. The efficiency of a public servant demands that he should be free
to perform his official duties fearlessly and without any favour. The dire
necessity is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the honest officers
while making the corrupt officers realize that they are not above law. The
protection to an honest public servant is required not only in his interest
but in the larger interest of society. This Court time and again extended
assurance to the honest and sincere officers to perform their duty in a
free and fair manner towards achieving a better society.
However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the age and trauma
suffered by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in jail and fought the
legal battle for about a period of 10 years before various forums and more
particularly in the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the
petitioner, we deem it fit that a lump sum amount of Rs.10 lakhs be awarded
as compensation to the petitioner on all forms.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.933 OF 2014
Dr. RAM LAKHAN SINGH …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY …. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
N.V. RAMANA, J.
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed
by one Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, an incumbent of Indian Forest Service (1969
Batch, U.P. Cadre) who rendered services to the respondent State and
Government of India in various positions for about 35 years till his
retirement. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was illegally
detained by the respondent authorities after implicating him in false
vigilance cases and dishonouring the High Court’s directions. Because of
the malicious, willful and contemptuous acts of the State and clear abuse
of legal process, he and his family members had to suffer a great ordeal of
mental agony and heavy financial loss besides being defamed in the society.
Hence, he prayed this Court to express displeasure over the violation of
his family members’ fundamental rights and to direct the respondent to pay
compensation for the loss of his professional career, reputation and for
causing mental agony.
2. The relevant facts as submitted by the petitioner, who argued his
case before us in person, are that he has rendered about 35 years service
to the State of U.P. and the Government of India, with an unblemished
record. He became a Member of the National Board for Wild Life (for short
“NBWL”) on 22nd September, 2003. The then Chief Minister of the
respondent State wanted the petitioner to take necessary steps so as to get
the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh District denotified
by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th October, 2003. As the petitioner
did not comply with the directions, the then Chief Minister of Uttar
Pradesh, in the guise of a complaint by the MLA of his own party against
the petitioner, issued directions to the Director General, Vigilance
Establishment of the State to initiate a vigilance enquiry against him. As
per the procedure envisaged for the purpose by D.O. Letter No.2020/39(2)-
12(5)-74, dated
12-09-1997 (Annexure P-11), before a case is sent for State Vigilance
Establishment, the approval of the State Vigilance Committee is a
condition precedent, but the respondent State without following the
prescribed procedure, conducted vigilance enquiry and removed him from his
post. The petitioner moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.126 of 2004
to declare that the vigilance enquiry against him was done in clear
violation of the prescribed procedure. The High Court by orders dated 30th
January, 2004 and 14th September, 2007 directed the State Vigilance
Committee to carry out the enquiry proceedings, but the respondent did not
comply with the directions of the High Court.
3. While that being so, Writ Petition No.2985 of 2004 was filed before
the High Court by an advocate arraying the petitioner as respondent No.4
therein. According to the petitioner, the writ petition (PIL) was got
purportedly filed by the advocate who was working in the office of the then
Advocate General, making false averments stating that the vigilance
committee had already completed the enquiry in various issues against him.
As a matter of fact, on the date of institution of the said writ petition,
the enquiry against the petitioner was not even referred to the State
Vigilance Committee. In the said petition, the High Court, on 25th June,
2004, passed an order which, inter alia, reads thus:
“List this case on 12.02.2004, Vigilance Committee shall carry on with
the proceeding, but no final order shall be passed.
It has been further averred that the vigilance committee had already
completed the enquiry in various issues against the respondent No.4,
namely Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh and the matter is serious in nature in mis-
utilization of Government funds in its own way. Nowhere the Division
Bench vide its order dated 30.01.04 had stopped the State to lodge
FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance Committee comes to the conclusion
that some cognizable offence is committed by respondent No.4. It was
always open for the State to lodge FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance
Committee had come to a conclusion that some cognizable offence has
been committed by respondent No.4, it is always open for the State to
lodge an FIR, if some cognizable offence is found to have been
committed by the Respondent No.4, and if it comes out from the report
of the Vigilance Committee, not only the State but also any person can
lodge an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with respect to a cognizable
offence said to have been committed by a particular person. The
Division Bench has never stopped the State to lodge an FIR since the
Departmental proceeding can very well continue simultaneously.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands finally disposed
of.”
4. Taking advantage of the order dated 25th June, 2004 passed by the
High Court, FIR was registered against the petitioner and his house was
raided. The petitioner claims that in the case of house raid and arrest of
a Member of the All India Services like that of the petitioner, the State
Vigilance Establishment is required to take prior permission and approval
of the Chief Secretary of the State, whereas in the case of the petitioner
no such approval had been obtained. Afterwards, the respondent obtained
approval by a
pre-dated letter on 5th July, 2004, concealing the fact of raiding the
petitioner’s house on 25-06-2004 and the petitioner was finally arrested.
Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered against the petitioner on the
same day and the petitioner was suspended from his official duties.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of
filing Writ Petition No.236 of 2004 and this Court permitted the petitioner
to approach the High Court afresh. Accordingly, the proceedings were
recommenced before the High Court in Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 and
finally on 30th August, 2011, the High Court disposed of the matter, inter
alia, observing thus:
“Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate in the presence
of the petitioner Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh and Sri J.N. Mathur,
Additional Advocate General for the State.
The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that all actions and
orders passed, if any, in violation of the Court’s order dated 30-01-
2004 be declared to be null and void and be quashed and that, in
fact, the matter was never referred to Vigilance Committee and
consequently, no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated against the
petitioner and, therefore, all actions taken/complaints lodged with
the assumption that vigilance enquiry has been initiated against the
petitioner, shall stand void and non est.
Sri J.N. Mathur does not dispute the aforesaid position and has no
objection if such a direction is issued.
We have gone through the documents on record and we find that it is
a case where the petitioner has undergone severe agony because of
the incorrect statement about the Vigilance Committee being
constituted and vigilance enquiry being initiated against him.”
6. The petitioner finally submitted that he was prosecuted without a
plausible cause and only by malicious and willful intention of the
respondent, he had to suffer unlawful suspension from the post of Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, loss of full salary and retirement benefits
which were withheld for a period of more than ten years. For causing him
the loss of professional career including that of the Member of NBWL,
reputation, great mental agony and heavy financial loss besides defaming
his character, the petitioner prayed for compensation.
7. The State has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made
against the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the State
submitted that the arrest and suspension of the petitioner were done in
accordance with proper procedure. The prior approval of the State
Vigilance Committee applies only in those cases where the Administrative
Department recommends the cases for investigation and such prior approval
of State Vigilance Committee is not required in cases as that of the
petitioner where the Chief Minister directly orders for vigilance enquiry.
In the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was allegedly owning
disproportionate assets beyond his income, as being a public servant, such
offence attracts punishment under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Even the search operation by the team
consisting of officers from the Vigilance Department including lady
officers was conducted in consonance with the rules and regulations
honoring the human rights. Thus, the respondent had not committed any
illegality and there was no flouting of any orders of the Hon’ble High
Court or blatant violation of fundamental right to life guaranteed to the
petitioner.
8. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that even all the retirement
dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14.57 lakhs and Rs.3,00,886/- as
interest on gratuity for delay has been paid. In addition, the petitioner
who retired on 31-12-2004 was being paid provisional pension w.e.f. 01-01-
2005 till his final pension was sanctioned on 28-08-2015. However, earned
leave encashment of Rs.4,03,106/- was sanctioned on 21-02-2014, but for the
payment of interest on late payment of leave encashment, there is no
provision in the rules and hence the interest could not be paid.
9. Having heard the parties on either side, we find that the narration
of the facts indicates a clear procedural lapse on the part of the
respondent which caused mental agony and financial loss to the writ
petitioner. Though there is no material before us indicating the
involvement of the Chief Minister in initiating the proceedings against the
petitioner for not fulfilling his request, as alleged by the petitioner,
however, the initiation of vigilance proceedings and statements made before
the High Court by officers of the respondent State led to the arrest of the
petitioner causing great loss to him. At the end of the day, as per the
statement made by the respondent before the High Court and by the order of
the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Lucknow (Annexure P-31) on 15-02-
2012, all the actions against the applicant have been declared as null and
void. But in the entire process, the petitioner had to suffer mental agony
and loss of reputation in the society besides huge financial loss. Even
the retrial benefits have been paid to the petitioner belatedly which is
attributable to the negligence and irresponsible act of the State.
10. A public servant in a democracy should be a guardian of morals. He
is entrusted with higher responsibilities of a public office and they
contribute their best for the just and humane society. We feel that for
effective functioning of a democracy, the role of Executive is very
important. Civil servants and public officials are expected to maintain
and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence by demonstrating the high
standards of professional competence, efficiency and effectiveness by
upholding the Constitution and rule of law, keeping in mind the advancement
of public good at all times. Public employment being a public trust, the
improper use of the public position for personal advantage is considered as
a serious breach of trust. With the changing times, the role of Executive
and expectation of the citizens in governance also underwent tremendous
change.
11. Dishonesty and corruption are biggest challenges for any developing
country. If the public servant indulges in corruption, the citizens who
are vigilant in all aspects take note of this seriously and develop a sense
of distress towards the Government and its mechanism, on a whole it sends a
very alarming message to the society at large and to the common man in
particular. In any civilized society, the paramount consideration is the
welfare of the society and corruption is the biggest hindrance in that
process. If the corrupt public servant is not punished, then it will have
a negative impact on the honest public servants who will be discouraged and
demoralized. Some upright officers resist corruption but they cannot alone
change the system which victimizes them through frequent punitive
transfers, threat to their families and fabricating, foisting false cases.
12. In such a scenario, until and unless we maintain a fine balance
between prosecuting a guilty officer and protecting an innocent officer
from vexatious, frivolous and mala fide prosecution, it would be very
difficult for the public servant to discharge his duties in free and fair
manner. The efficiency of a public servant demands that he should be free
to perform his official duties fearlessly and without any favour. The dire
necessity is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the honest officers
while making the corrupt officers realize that they are not above law. The
protection to an honest public servant is required not only in his interest
but in the larger interest of society. This Court time and again extended
assurance to the honest and sincere officers to perform their duty in a
free and fair manner towards achieving a better society.
13. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State at the time of hearing specifically indicates that the FIRs against
the petitioner were lodged for the crimes relating to the petitioner’s
owning disproportionate assets beyond his income, illegal mining and
auction of Tendu patta leaves causing loss of revenue to Government and
undue gain to the purchasers. However, except making such averments, no
material in support of allegations leveled against the petitioner has been
made available to this Court. On the other hand, the order of the High
Court passed on 30th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 (Annexure
P-30), clearly indicates that the Additional Advocate General for the State
did not dispute the averments made by the petitioner that his case was
never referred to Vigilance Committee and consequently no vigilance enquiry
was ever initiated against him. The High Court order further reveals that
the Additional Advocate General also expressed no objection to declare that
all actions taken and complaints lodged against the petitioner shall stand
void and non est in the eye of law. Thus, in the light of the foregoing,
it is clear that the defence taken by the State in the counter affidavit is
only to justify its illegal action against the petitioner, without
producing any material supporting the stand taken by them.
14. It appears that after his discharge from the Court proceedings, the
petitioner had written a letter to the Chief Minister on 12th May, 2011
seeking an amount of Rs.4½ crores towards compensation and damages.
Normally, this Court is reluctant in determining or granting any
compensation while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution, but advises the parties to approach the competent Courts for
adjudicating those issues. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the age and trauma
suffered by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in jail and fought the
legal battle for about a period of 10 years before various forums and more
particularly in the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the
petitioner, we deem it fit that a lump sum amount of Rs.10 lakhs be awarded
as compensation to the petitioner on all forms.
15. Accordingly, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay a lump sum
of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three months towards
compensation.
16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………………………J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
.……………………………………………J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 17, 2015.