A government hospital official arrested on charges of demanding a bribe was sent back to the same hospital and the same post after his suspension was revoked -- a decision that has now drawn the Supreme Court’s scrutiny even as it restored his bail in the corruption case.
Taking note of what it called a “disturbing feature”, the court questioned how the official, who was arrested and spent 15 days in judicial custody in connection with the bribery case, could be reinstated and posted to the same hospital, in the same position.
“There is one disturbing feature which we should not ignore…This aspect shall be looked into by the state at the earliest,” said a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan, directing the Bihar government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The court’s observations came while setting aside a Patna High Court order that had cancelled the bail granted to Vishwa jeet Singh, an administrator at the government-run Sadar Hospital in Samastipur. Singh was accused of demanding ₹4,000 from a complainant for clearing his pending wages of ₹36,421.
An FIR was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following which he was arrested. The sessions court subsequently granted him bail, but the high court overturned that decision on a plea by the complainant, directing that he be taken back into custody.
{{/usCountry}}An FIR was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following which he was arrested. The sessions court subsequently granted him bail, but the high court overturned that decision on a plea by the complainant, directing that he be taken back into custody.
{{/usCountry}}Supreme Court restores bail
The Supreme Court noted that the high court had interfered with the bail order nearly a year after Singh was released, apparently taking exception to the sessions court’s observation that the alleged bribe amount was paltry.
While agreeing with the high court that the quantum of the bribe was not a relevant consideration in deciding whether an accused should get bail, the bench said this alone was not sufficient to cancel the relief granted by the sessions court.
“Ordinarily, in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment that the trial court would impose, ultimately, if the accused is held to be guilty, bail is to be granted,” noted the court in a recent order, adding that it would be different where an accused had criminal antecedents or the facts were particularly grave.
The bench accordingly restored the original bail order, making it clear that the question of bail had to be assessed on established judicial considerations rather than the amount allegedly involved.
Also read: Ex-bank manager gets 4-yr jail in bribery case in UP’s Balrampur
State asked to review suspension revocation
But the court then turned to the state government’s handling of the official’s service status. It noted that a public servant who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be under suspension, without the need for a separate order. The state informed the bench that Singh had indeed been suspended after his arrest, but that the suspension was subsequently revoked.
What troubled the court was that the state had not merely reinstated him but also returned him to the same hospital and the same post.
“We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in fact the appellant was placed under suspension but later, the suspension order came to be revoked, and, shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital and that too on the very same post. This aspect shall be looked into by the State at the earliest,” ordered the bench.