197 public servants arrested on corruption charges this year not suspended yet

Around 197 public servants arrested this year for corruption in Maharashtra are yet to be suspended, while 15 convicted officials have not been dismissed. The Anti-Corruption Bureau has also been unable to file chargesheets in 276 cases as they await sanction from the competent authority. The number of corruption cases registered this year has increased by 17% compared to last year. The delay in suspending officials and filing chargesheets is contributing to low conviction rates and a culture of impunity, according to experts.

MUMBAI: Around 197 public servants arrested this year on corruption/bribery charges by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) are yet to be suspended by their departments.

HT Image

Similarly, 15 public servants despite being convicted in various bribery cases are yet to be dismissed by their departments.

In 276 cases, chargesheet could not be filed by the ACB officials as the matter is either pending before the state or the competent authority for sanction.

“The number of cases registered this year have gone up around 17% as compared to the last year. Till mid-July of 2022, the Maharashtra ACB had registered 402 cases in which 568 accused were involved, whereas this year, so far, we have registered 476 corruption cases against 668 accused persons,” said an official of the ACB.

The official said Nashik division has registered the highest number of cases (101), followed by Pune (83), Aurangabad (80). He said the Mumbai and Thane divisions have registered 24 and 56 cases this year respectively.

“We have arrested 197 public servants red-handed while accepting bribes, but they are yet to be suspended by their department heads/authorities,” said the ACB official.

“Most of them – 53 in all — belong to rural development department, followed by 47 from the school education and sports department, 26 from the urban development department, 20 from the revenue department and 17 from the home department, which comprise policemen/home-guards etc.,” added the official.

Similarly, despite being convicted of graft charges, 15 state government employees have not been dismissed from service by their respective departments.

“In some cases, after they were convicted, they could not be dismissed as they went in appeal and the matters have been pending before various courts,” said the official.

“The ACB has sent proposals to various departments for attaching properties worth ₹14 crore belonging to the public servants apprehended on bribery charges this year, as the investigations revealed that the property was ill-gotten, but the competent authorities have yet not cleared the attachment proposals,” said the ACB official.

“In around 276 matters, the ACB is waiting for sanctions to file chargesheets against the public servants booked and/or arrested in the corruption cases, mostly involving bribery charges.

“Of the 276 cases, in 208 matters a period of 90 days – the outer limit for the authorities to decide proposals for granting sanction to prosecute public servants/government employees booked in corruption cases, but we haven’t heard from their departments yet,” added the official.

“According to an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, made on July 26, 2018, the PC Act required prior sanction of the appropriate government for prosecution of serving public officials.

“The Amendment Act extends this protection of requirements to even former officials as well for offences allegedly committed by them while in office. However, section 19 (1) of the PC Act mandates the authorities to decide the proposals for sanction to prosecute within three months, extendable by a month. This includes cases where traps are laid to catch officials accepting bribes or those of disproportionate assets,” said an ACB official.

The official added that the delay at all states like this and then in completing trials is one of the key reasons for the low conviction rates in cases registered under the PC Act.

He said as the disposal time is stretched, the complainant’s interest in the case deteriorates and then witnesses either make errors in their depositions or become untraceable and vital time is lost, leading to acquittals. Other reasons for fewer convictions include transfer or retirement of the officers who investigate the cases, he added.

In this regard, the Supreme Court has observed: “Delays in prosecuting the corrupt breeds a culture of impunity and leads to systemic resignation to the existence of corruption in public life. Such inaction is fraught with the risk of making future generations getting accustomed to corruption as a way of life,”

Jeetendra Ghadge, RTI activist from Mumbai, who has been consistently following cases registered under the PC Act and the ACB losely, said the statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Section 97 of the PC Act intend to serve the purpose of protecting a public servant.

“These protections are not available to other citizens because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect them,” said Ghadge.

“However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices. If they are protected and not suspended or dismissed this will only boost their confidence and increase corruption,” Ghadge added.

Praveen Dixit, former director general of police (DGP), Maharashtra, who has also served as the DGP, ACB, had started a system to upload names and even photos of the people who were caught by the ACB on the bureau’s website and further details regarding the authority with whom proposal for sanction was pending – so as to put pressure on the authorities to clear the proposals at the earliest.

“We used to send reminders to the concerned departments to decide on the suspension or dismissal or for even decision relating to sanctions to filing of charges,” said Dixit.

“We also used to have regular meetings in the office of the additional chief secretary, home department, every fortnight where the officials (competent authorities) with whom the ACB files used to be pending, had to update on the action taken by them or explain the delays in deciding the proposals,” he said.

“This entire exercise had brought about a positive change in the system and sped up the process,” added Dixit.