Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
S. Ponmani – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to G.O. (Ms) No.139, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department, dated 29.06.2018, issued by the first respondent, whereby the provisional decision was confirmed imposing the punishment of permanent pension cut of Rs.7,867/- per month from the pension payable to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, was issued a charge memo dated 05.05.2005 alleging that, actuated by corrupt motive and abuse of official position, he demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. It was alleged that on 31.07.2002, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant for permitting him to rejoin duty after the expiry of medical leave and, on 05.08.2002, reduced the demand to Rs.10,000/- as advance and Rs.15,000/- to be paid after rejoining duty. It was further alleged that on 13.08.2002, the petitioner accepted Rs.10,000/- and handed over the amount to his Personal Clerk, Ms. K. Banumuthy, to keep in her custody, thereby receiving illegal gratification other than legal remuneration.
3. The petitioner denied the charges. A departmental
Findings in disciplinary proceedings must rest on credible evidence; reliance on uncorroborated testimony without substantial support leads to arbitrary decisions.
Sufficient evidence is required to uphold charges of corruption, and mere handling of money does not equate to knowledge of illicit activities.
The prosecution must establish both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law - When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses, despite hostility.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
There must be credible evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of the witness's credibility.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
