1. Conviction of a public servant for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent disciplinary proceedings for removal from service under Railway Servants Rules. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 220
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Satpal Kapoor, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab Respondent.
WITH
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus S. P. Kapoor, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 96 of 1990 with Civil Appeal No. 9089 of 1994, D/- 9-2-1995.
The Court upheld a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reducing the sentence due to the appellant's health. It further affirmed the termination of service following criminal conviction, directing the removal to be effective from the date the High Court confirmed the conviction.
Headnote:
Corruption Act - Section 5 - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 - Rule 14 – Offence of harassment - Demand of bribe - On successful trap being laid appellant was tried and found guilty for having accepted bribe of from the complainant - Prosecution story is of usual kind - Demand of bribe was made by the appellant under the threat that he would as an authorized Food Inspector purchased samples of milk from complainant and put him to harassment - Otherwise in his capacity as Health Inspector he had complained to the authorities concerned about insanitation created by complainant keeping cattle in his railway quarters - In these circumstances and Department of Vigilance were moved into matter and trap was organized - Tainted currency of two notes of rupees denomination were found in pocket of appellant on the successful completion of the trap – Held, Aggrieved respondent on receipt of the order of removal filed writ petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court which on transfer went to Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench - It appears that Tribunal took stock of Railway Board circular of year which was to effect that Railway Servant on his conviction by Criminal Court could only be removed from service after the final decision of the Court - On that basis the order of removal was set aside - After confirmation of conviction disciplinary authority took no steps whatever to remove respondent from service and in meantime it is stated that he retired - On other hand Review Petition was filed before Central Administrative Tribunal bringing to its pointed attention a letter circular of the Railway Board of year which was to effect that it was not compulsory in every case to wait for the final decision of the criminal Court and it could well be that an order of dismissal could be passed after conviction recorded by Court of first instance - Tribunal rejected such prayer and it is that order passed in review which has been challenged herein by means of this appeal by special leave - Significantly original order passed by Tribunal has been subjected to appeal - Order accordingly
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claimed the bribe trap was fabricated; respondent argued removal from service should only occur after the final decision of the criminal court. (Para 1 , 5 )
3. The fabrication defense was improbable given the phenolphthalein powder ritual; medical conditions justify sentence reduction; termination of service is appropriate following confirmed conviction. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
4. Conviction for bribery is sustainable where trap evidence is corroborated; disciplinary removal from service is justified upon confirmation of criminal conviction. (Para 2 , 6 )
5. Conviction upheld with sentence reduced to four months simple imprisonment; removal from service upheld effective from the date of first appeal dismissal. (Para 3 , 6 )
6. How does the court evaluate a defense claiming a bribe trap was fabricated?
The court assesses the probability of the defense. If the raid involved specific procedures like phenolphthalein powder, a claim of planted evidence is viewed as improbable because the case could have been foisted without such rituals. (Para 2 )
7. Can medical conditions influence the modification of a criminal sentence?
Yes, the court may reduce a sentence or grant concessions based on the appellant's age and documented serious medical conditions, such as coronary heart disease. (Para 3 )
8. Can a government servant be removed from service based on a criminal conviction before the final appeal is decided?
Yes, depending on the applicable board circulars, dismissal may be passed after conviction by the court of first instance, though the court may modify the effective date of removal to align with the dismissal of the first appeal. (Para 5 , 6 )
Judgement
JUDGMENT :- Criminal Appeal No. 96/90.
On a successful trap being laid the appellant was tried and found guilty for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/- from the complainant. The prosecution story is of the usual kind. The demand of bribe was made by the appellant under the threat that he would, as an authorised Food Inspector, purchased samples of milk from the complainant and put him to harassment. Otherwise in his capacity as Health Inspector he had complained to the authorities concerned about the insanitation created by the complainant in keeping cattle in his railway quarters. In these circumstances, the C. B. I. and the Department of Vigilance were moved into matter and the trap was organised. The tainted currency of two notes of rupees 50/- denomination were found in the pocket of the appellant on the successful completion of the trap. The version of the appellant was that the complainant had walked into his office and on its own put the two notes on the top of an almirah placed in the covered verandah in front of his office and that the C.B.I. officials on arrival had forcibly put those currency notes in his pocket. His case was that the C.B.I. Inspector was inimical towards him and that was the reason for false implication.
2. The defence of the appellant pre-supposes that there was a raid. He has given the counter-version stated above, but it does not probabilise in the facts and circumstances. Had the C. B. I. people been interested in foisting a case against the appellant and that too nakedly, it was no cause for the raid party to have created a drama of putting the notes into his pocket and in that way to have soiled his hands with phenolphthalein powder. Without any such ritual the case could have been foisted. The appellant led no contemporaneous evidence from which it could be proved or inferred that the appellant was a victim of an organised false trap. Both the Courts below having found him guilty of the offence, it is difficult for us to upset the conviction. Still to be on the safer side we have read with aid of the appellants counsel most of the prosecution evidence. The conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act thus appears to us to be well based requiring on interference.
3. On the sentence, however, we feel that the appellant deserves some concession. At the time of seeking exemption from surrendering in this Court, two certificates of Doctors were appended wherefrom it is evident that the appellant is an angina patient. Suffering from coronary diseases requiring medical attention. In his sworn affidavit he has described himself to be of 60 years of age. Keeping these factors in view, we would alter the sentence of the appellant to four months simple imprisonment and sustain the sentence of fine. With this modification in the sentence of the appellant, the appeal otherwise fails. Ordered accordingly.
(Prepared on 8-2-1995)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9089 OF 1994 :
4. Pursuant to the conviction of the respondent recorded by the Special Judge, the disciplinary authority passed an order in the purported exercise of Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 read in the light of the Circulars issued by the Railway Board from time to time. Concededly on that date, the respondent had filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and had obtained an order suspending his sentence under the provisions of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Incidently, it may deserve mentioning at this stage that the High Court dismissed the appeal of the respondent on 7-4-1989 confirming the conviction and sentence of the respondent. The said order of the High Court, subject to a slight modification in the measure of sentence, has been upheld by us in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1990 which came up for disposal along with the instant matter.
5. The aggrieved respondent on receipt of the order of removal, filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana
