SC for strict action against financial bungling, embezzlement

New Delhi, Sep 24 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held that substituting lighter punishment for those found guilty of financial bungling or corruption by the courts amounts to abuse of the process of the court.

A Bench comprising Justices G P Mathur and A K Mathur while setting aside the judgment of Uttaranchal High Court dated July 28,2005 reducing the punishment of dismissal from service into one censure entry and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, ruled substitution of lighter punishment in cases of financial embzzlement by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was wrong.

The appellant UP State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun had appealed against the order of reinstatement of Suresh Pal who was a conductor and during the checking of his bus on July 28,1989 it was found that twenty passengers were found travelling without ticket in his bus and after domestic inquiry by the department he was dismissed from service on Jan. 5,1990. He had joined as conductor on July 24,1988.

The apex court in its judgment dated Sept.22 ruled,"If incumbment like the petitioner starts misappropriating the money by not issuing tickets and pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the corporation then this is a serious misconduct. All the State Transport Corporations in the country have gone in the red because of the misconduct of such kind of incumbments, therefore it is the time that such misconduct should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently." The court went on to say,"Normally courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shockingly disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered or substituted lightly in punishment in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction then it will amount to abuse of the process of court. If such kind of misconduct is dealt with lightly and courts start substituting the lighter punishment in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution then it will give wrong signal in the society." Confirming the order of dismissal passed by the appellant corporation the apex court said,"We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single judge can not be upheld and there is no reason worth the name to award lighter punishment. Hence we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned single judge and confirm order of dismissal passed by the corporation." The court also ruled that lighter punishment can not be given without giving reasons for such a course and the respondent in this case was found indulging in such things in the first year of his service what can be expected from him in future.

UNI AKS/SC RP BS1153