Thursday, June 3, 2010

Will Supreme Court apply same standards to corrupt judges?

A bus conductor in UP was dismissed from service, for not remitting money to government for 25 passengers.  Supreme court has upheld his dismissal from service.

Telecom minister Raja was involved in scam of 2G spectrum auction which resulted in loss of thousands of crores to government.

The message seems to be that one should be a minister, or judge in higher courts, to be able to escape all punishment and get immunity from charges of corruption.  A high court judge need not worry about 15 lakh of cash kept at doorstep, but a bus conductor must worry about misappropriation of funds!  These are the high standards judiciary wants to preach.

The apex court gave the judgement while upholding the dismissal of a bus conductor Suresh Chandra Sharma of the UP State Road Transport Corporation. Sharma was dismissed from service by the Corporation after a departmental inquiry held him guilty of collecting fares from about 25 passengers but not remitting them to the official exchequer.

The Uttaranchal High Court, however, had quashed the dismissal on the ground that the inquiry was vitiated as the authorities did not examine the passengers and ordered Sharma's reinstatement, but without any back wages.

Aggrieved by the order, both the corporation and the employee filed appeals in the apex court.

Upholding the Corporation's appeal, the apex court citing its 1996 judgement in the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan Bihari case said, "In cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal.

"Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large;  it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant."

The apex court further cited the Vinod Kumar Vs UPSRTC case (2008) that "the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal."

The bench said that in a domestic inquiry, complicated principles and procedures laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act need not be strictly adhered to.

"The only right of a delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to what are the charges against him and he must be given full opportunity to defend himself on the said charges.

"More so, the High Court is under an obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by a domestic tribunal. In case the judgment and order of the High Court is found not duly supported by reasons, the judgment itself stands vitiated," the apex court added.


  1. There is a great need for applying equal standard's for all those public servants in the matter of corruption and assets exceeding to the known sources of their income.
    Although Supreme court has passed many Judgements with wonderful observations and guideliness it remained on paper rather than its applicability when Judges are attacked in the matter of corruption

    In Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 605 at 650-51], (K. Ramaswamy, J). held that

    "the holder of office of the Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court should, therefore, be above the conduct of ordinary mortals in the society. The standards of judicial behaviour, both on and off the Bench, are normally high. There cannot, however, be any fixed or set principles, but an unwritten code of conduct of well-established traditions is the guidelines for judicial conduct. The conduct that tends to undermine the public confidence in the character, integrity or impartiality of the Judge must be eschewed. It is expected of him to voluntarily set forth wholesome standards of conduct reaffirming fitness to higher responsibilities. To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the Judge must be endowed with sterling character, impeccable integrity and upright behaviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the efficacy of the rule of law and the working of the Constitution itself. The Judges of higher echelons, therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human failings and weak character which may be found in those in other walks of life. They should be men of fighting faith with tough fibre not susceptible to any pressure, economic, political or any sort. The actual as well as the apparent independence of judiciary would be transparent only when the office holders endow those qualities which would operate as impregnable fortress against surreptitious attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In short, the behaviour of the Judge is the bastion for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law."

    Is it not applicable to our C.J?

    Does Allegations against CJ not bringing down the office Judiciary to disrepute?

    When tainted head of a Home continues can we expect order in the home?

    When you people are preachers and enforcers of discipline indulge in such breaking of law then will people listen to your philosophy?

    What is the meaning that can be attached to "standards of conduct reaffirming fitness to higher responsibilities" in case of CJ ?

    It is pertinent to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur & ors. v. Kaki & ors., (2007) 1 SCC 546 : "2. Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos."

  2. Dear Sir
    In India JUDICIARY is a most corrupt independent department, it is a slow poison to 340 lac millions Indians, as per law commission 230th report, above mention cases pending in courts, this AIDS spread by Judges, Police department, and Advocates to countrymen, Judiciary > soul of any country, Soul of India is not “A” grade it is 999% corrupt, 340 lacs pending??, this is a DATA, LIVE PROOF THEY ARE CORRUPT, only .001% we can say are honest, JUDGE Satyanaran ji one from Andhra pardesh, Judge Shori ji from HARYANA,
    Judiciary is Corrupt > Mr. moily law minister said in parliament, to know this bare truth - MORE - DATA - visit my web page, see folder RKS -PKL, RKS Complaint sge,, see files bare truth, study all file, eyes and mind both will be open, i am a live proof, sushil kumar +971-55-7078684, FOR MORE DATA VISIT IN COURTS - INTERACT WITH SLOW POISON “AIDS” VICTIMS, UNLIMITED DATA WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL study file RKS complaint sge last page and apply your mind. One rice is enough to know the condition of all. Agreed ………