MEMO.No.
1621/SPL.B/2001-1 Dated:
26-11-2001
The
Supreme Court in its latest judgement in K.C.Sareen vs. CBI Chandigarh, 2001
(5) Supreme 437 decided on 2.8.2001 as follows:
“Corruption by public servants has
now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started
grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the Republic.
Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and
orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative,
executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even
paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic
polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could gamer momentum to
cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and
operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of
corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law,
judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is
exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional
forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and
findings made against such public servants once again should not even
temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes
entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is
judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of
conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably.
When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to
hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such
office, and consequently that would erode the already shrink confidence of the
people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public
servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted
person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed
corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would
be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court
should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges
to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial
adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. The above policy can be
acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public
offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction
is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the
revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency
of the appeal even if the. sentence or imprisonment is suspended. It would, be
a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under
disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment
in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision”.
All
Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to follow the
above instructions scrupulously and also to communicate the above instructions
to the Public Enterprises, Autonomous Bodies and other Institutions receiving
Grant-in-Aid etc., under their administrative control.
