Mere recovery of money can`t prove corruption: CAT

The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that mere recovery of money is not enough to prove that a government employee is guilty of corruption.

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2010, 18:03 PM IST

New Delhi: The Central Administrative
Tribunal has held that mere recovery of money is not enough to
prove that a government employee is guilty of corruption.

It said that there has to be legally admissible
evidence regarding the demand and acceptance of money to hold
that the person is corrupt.

The Tribunal passed the order on a petition of two
policemen who were accused of corruption by the Delhi Police
and had approached the bench for relief from major penalty
proceedings against them.

"If a government servant is punished on suspicion and
surmises without any evidence on record to connect him from
the alleged misconduct, probability, suspicion and conjectures
would not take place as proof to hold one guilty of charges,"
the Tribunal bench comprising Members N D Dayal and S Raju
said.

It said there has to be some legally admissible
evidence to hold a person guilty of corruption.

"Courts would not give premium to a person against
whom charges of corruption are proved to the hilt but the
condition precedent is that before a government servant is
declared corrupt, there has to be some legally admissible
evidence and proof to establish it," it said.

The policemen-- constables Rajeev Tyagi and Raghu
Raj-- had been charged with accepting bribe of Rs 150 from a
truck driver.

The Tribunal said the policemen were not guilty of
taking the bribe as the truck driver had not deposed against
them.

It held that the report of the inquiry officer was
vague, indefinite and inconclusive and cannot be accepted as
the statements of the policemen have not been taken into
account.

The Tribunal said that the inquiry officer on the basis
of recovery of money deemed the charge of demand and
acceptance which was a finding recorded "perversely" and did
not pass the twin test of a common reasonable prudent man.

PTI