Corruption Cases In Tamilnadu Pending Trial Since 1983 Onwards, Must Be Dealt With Priority By Both Special And Regular Courts: Madras HC
While hearing a plea by a former Senior Driver seeking terminal and pensionary benefits which were not settled in light of a corruption case against him, the Madras High Court expressed deep unhappiness over the pendency of corruption cases in the state. As per a status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, nearly 1635 corruption cases are...
While hearing a plea by a former Senior Driver seeking terminal and pensionary benefits which were not settled in light of a corruption case against him, the Madras High Court expressed deep unhappiness over the pendency of corruption cases in the state.
As per a status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, nearly 1635 corruption cases are pending across the State of Tamil Nadu and those cases were registered from the year 1983 onwards.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that with such pendency there was no possibility of controlling corrupt practices among public servants. Further, when criminal proceedings are kept pending for such a long period, the offenders will get encouragement to escape the clutches of law.
It is an unfortunate circumstance, where, the corruption cases are not dealt with by the Competent Authorities within a reasonable period of time. Blame game by the Police Authorities and the Courts would not resolve the issue. Practical and pragmatic approach is required for the purpose of solving these problems and if the corruption cases are kept pending for years together, then, there is no possibility of controlling the corrupt practices among the Public Servants.
If trial is allowed to go on in this manner, this Court is afraid that all these cases will end in vain without any fruitful results. The very purpose and object of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be defeated.
It therefore asked judicial officers to refrain from granting unnecessary adjournments in corruption cases.
Adjournment is an exception and proceeding with the case is the Rule. Whenever an adjournment is sought for by either of the parties, then reasons must be recorded for the grant of adjournments....the Courts have to be cautious, while granting adjournments whenever such requests are made on behalf of the parties, the court observed.
It further said that courts must deprecate the practice of lawyers seeking unnecessary adjournments and prolonging the litigation.
At the outset, various trickery methods are adopted by the parties to get adjournments in order to evade the proceedings or to prolong the litigation. Such ideas or intention of the parties, at no circumstances, be encouraged by the Courts.
In the present case, noting that the criminal case had been pending for about 22 years without even framing charges, Justice SM Subramaniam directed the charges to be framed at the next hearing date and the trial to be conducted as expeditiously as possible.
In the present case, the petitioner V Annadurai was appointed as Conductor in 1984 and later became Selection Grade Senior Driver. During his service, in 2003, the petitioner, along with 53 others was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal case was numbered in 2009 in the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and was transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge. In 2018, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service without any prejudice to the pendency of the criminal case against him.
The petitioner's case was that even after retiring in 2018, none of the terminal and pensionary benefits were settled and no action had been taken by the Authorities to dispose of the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings. Thus, the petitioner approached the high court seeking such benefits.
After hearing the arguments of all sides, the court noted that since the petitioner was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the criminal case, all the eligible benefits should be paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings.
In respect of the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the criminal case. Thus, the eligible benefits, as per the Rules, are to be settled in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Balance retirement benefits are to be settled after the disposal of the criminal case and subject to the judgment in the criminal case.
The court also directed the authorities to pass final orders in the Departmental Disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: V Annadurai v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Case No: WP.No.21625 of 2019