|
Service Matters - The legislature has used a comprehensive definition of “public servant” to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of corruption - Keeping this intention of the legislature in mind, the definition of “public servant” as defined under the PC Act should be given a purposive and wide interpretation so as to advance the object underlying the statute - It is the nature of duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance when determining whether such a person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant as defined under the PC Act - Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government for the discharge of such duty, are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act - the appellant was eligible for receiving discount on the purchase of stamp papers owing to the license that he was holding - the discount is traceable to and is governed by the 1934 Rules framed by the State Government - the appellant, could be said to be “remunerated by the government” for the purposes of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act - the prosecution has failed in establishing the allegation of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof beyond reasonable doubt - the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act cannot be sustained and is, thus, liable to be set aside - the appeal succeeds and is allowed - The conviction and sentence of the accused, as awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is set aside.
Case Law »
|
|
Service Case - the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them - It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them - when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery - It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023 - in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020 - It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery - The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable
Case Law »
|