Unexplained Receipt Of Money By Public Servant Not Bribery Without Link To Official Favour: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that mere receipt of money by a public servant, even if unexplained, cannot be treated as bribery in the absence of a clear evidentiary link between the payment and any unlawful official favour.Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while setting aside the removal of an officer of the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), holding that the finding of...
The Delhi High Court has held that mere receipt of money by a public servant, even if unexplained, cannot be treated as bribery in the absence of a clear evidentiary link between the payment and any unlawful official favour.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while setting aside the removal of an officer of the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), holding that the finding of corruption against him was unsustainable on the material on record.
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant Manager with the CWC, had been removed from service following disciplinary proceedings in which three charges were framed, including allegations of illegal gratification, operational lapses and misconduct.
The most serious charge (Article III) alleged that the officer had received illegal gratification from parties lifting stock and had received ₹75,000 in his bank account from a trader's representative.
While the inquiry officer held parts of the charge proved, the disciplinary authority treated the allegation of bribery as established and imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was later upheld on appeal.
The High Court found that the conclusion of bribery rested solely on the transfer of ₹75,000 to the officer's account, without any proof of how the transaction was linked to any wrongful favour.
“An unexplained or insufficiently explained transfer does partake the colour of bribe unless there is some rational evidentiary link between the receipt and the unlawful favour alleged in the charge,” it said.
On the remaining charges, the Court held that the allegation of “sleeping on duty” was not conclusively established and was based on inconsistent descriptions such as “lying on a cot”. Further, the charge of leaving headquarters without permission could amount to a limited lapse and the use of a casual labourer at the weighbridge reflected an irregularity in supervision.
These surviving lapses, the Court held, were not of a nature to justify the extreme penalty of removal once the corruption charge failed.
As such, the Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service.
Appearance: Ms. Prity Sharma and Mr. Ashwini Kaushik, Advocate with Petitioner in person; Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Rishabh Yadav and Mr. Harsh Chauhan, Advocates for R-2, 3.
Case title: Rajesh Choudhary v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14348/2023