Employees Vulnerable To Temptation Should Not Be Given Govt Jobs, Any Sympathy 'Erodes Democracy's Success': Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Patwari accused of accepting a bribe for entering a mutation based on forged documents observing that, employees vulnerable to temptations must not be given government jobs and any sympathies with such employees "erodes democracy's success."

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "A responsibility to perform any executive function when given to an officer drawing salary from the public exchequer is nothing short of delegation by the sovereign of its powers, and such officers are duty bound to stand tall in the performance of their duties, and they can discharge them legal, honesty and efficiently, only when they are honest, skilled, and meritorious. Those who have strong moral compass do not waiver because of temptation, and they place their duties to the system over and above their vested interests. Temptation or unquenched thirst for more money, more power is a devil in disguise."

The Court highlighted that one "only enters a pathway to destruction of their own choice."

It said that once such a person chooses to take the path of corruption they end up setting their own selves under a trap, which they are unable to escape from. 

Court added that employees who are vulnerable to temptation and do not stick to the ethical standards of living should stay away from government jobs and even the government should keep them away from sensitive positions.

"Any sympathies with such an employee erodes democracy's success, as a successful and a vibrant democracy is a result of its meritorious, honest, and skilled human resources, and the absence of corruption, fanaticism, mediocrity, and sycophancy," added the judge.

These observations came in response to the anticipatory bail plea filed by a Patwari, Gurwinder Singh, who was booked under Sections 7, 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 120-B IPC for allegedly agreeing to enter a mutation based on forged documents by accepting an offer of bribe of Rs.27,50,000, out of which the complainant had allegedly paid a sum of more than Rs.5,40,000- but the petitioner did not do the needful, which led to filing of a complaint.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that it is a case of well executed trap, and the complainant and his father indulged in these types of tactics by alluring innocent government employees.

"An analysis of this argument would lead to the outcome that there cannot be any presumption that if the father of the complainant had filed a false complaint, then even the complainant's complaint is also false; as such on this ground the petitioner is not entitled to bail," the Court opined.

Justice Chitkara considered the video clip of the petitioner recorded by the journalist wherein he was seen admitting that he took the bribe for attesting a mutation based on a forged sale deed.

"This video clip of 11 min 55 seconds makes it clear that the complainant is immoral, unethical, and a person with highly dubious credentials; however, the conversation that has been recorded clearly points out towards the petitioner's guilt," the judge said.

The Court added further that the video recording is subject to proof under FSL, but for the purpose of bail, which, according to the State, is untampered and is neither a deepfake nor an edited version. Even watching the video points out that the frames are in sequence and the voice is continuous. which points out that the video clip appears genuine.

It noted that in the video the petitioner has conveyed his stand to the journalist about his reluctance to do the work and has also given his narrate that he never wanted to do the work, but the complainant is so shrewd that they made friends with him, started coming to his home, made friends with his father, got proximity to his children and starting sending gifts.

Justice Chitkara clarified that it is not that only an employee at the lowest rank needs to control his desires, but the principle is of universal application.

In light of the above, the Court rejected the plea of anticipatory bail.

Advocates S.S. Narula for the petitioner.

Kanav Bansal, D.A.G., Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 92

Title: Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order