Corruption by public servant is a crime against state and society at large, says Bench
Corruption by public servant is a crime against state and society at large, says Bench
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the restoration of a criminal complaint dismissed by the Madras High Court against Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthilbalaji and others accused of taking bribes in exchange for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC).
“Corruption by a public servant is an offense against the State and the society,” said a judgment penned by a division bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramaniam.
Justice Ramasubramaniam, who wrote the judgment, said the high court erred in quashing the case simply because there was a “compromise” between the “briber payer” and the “briber taker”.
The public ultimately has to bear the loss at the hands of candidates who slip into the public service stream through corruption.
“We cannot run away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in Government/Public Corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are ultimately called to render public service. Needless to say that The quality of public service rendered by such persons would be contrary to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are the recipients of these services, also become victims indirectly, as the consequences of such appointments are the work done by the appointees. Sooner or later, Justice Ramasubramaniam said.
The verdict found it shocking that the real complainant in the corruption case, Arulmani, who worked with MTC, later became a party to the “collection of funds for illegitimate purposes”, filing an affidavit supporting the “compromise”. did and even went so far as to claim that he “never made any allegations against the minister”.
“We leave it in the hope that the employers and the state will take note of their conduct,” Justice Ramasubramaniam told the bench in the judgment.
The court rejected the efforts of the minister’s lawyers that he had played no role in the alleged money transaction.
“The person who received the money from the complainant and the victims was said to be a personal assistant of the minister. Further, the money was paid at the residence of the Minister with his information and the Minister has admitted (in the FIR) that those who paid the money would be rewarded with an appointment order,” the judgment said. ,
The court said it does not want to constitute a Special Investigation Team or appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the time being. “Since we hope that based on the observations made [in the judgment]The state itself can do the needful,” Justice Ramasubramaniam said.
The court revived the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment directed the State to obtain any stay order from the High Court in offenses under the Act keeping in view the “disastrous effect of preventing prosecution under the Act”.