In a strong observation, the Supreme Court asked, “Why should a corrupt public official be allowed to resume the job?” while questioning reinstatement after conviction, raising serious concerns about integrity in public service roles.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that a government official convicted of corruption should not be permitted to return to service until they have been exonerated.
A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that “reinstating corrupt officials could damage public trust as they dismissed a petition from a railway inspector convicted in a bribery case.“
The bench questioned,
“Why should a corrupt public official be allowed to resume the job?”
It further noted,
“If a guilty officer is allowed to remain in service, it will weaken the foundation of the system. This would be an insult to honest officers,”
The inspector from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) sought a stay on his conviction by a Gujarat trial court in the bribery case.
Although the Gujarat High Court suspended his sentence and granted bail, it did not suspend the conviction.
Also Read: Global Corruption Index 2024 | Denmark Tops the List, India Slips to 96th Rank
His advocate, Niteen Kumar Sinha, argued that the trial court had erred in convicting the inspector and sentencing him to two years in prison.
He claimed that there was no evidence proving that the inspector had demanded or accepted a bribe, urging the Supreme Court to stay the conviction and allow his client to return to duty.
Referencing the ‘K.C. Sareen vs. Union of India’ case, the bench stated,
“A convicted officer cannot be allowed to continue in service merely on the ground that an appeal is pending in a higher court. Allowing such public servants to continue in public office damages public trust.”
Also Read: Corruption in Judiciary – The Cracks in India’s Justice System
The court ultimately dismissed the petition.
In the ‘K.C. Sareen vs. Union of India’ case, the Supreme Court observed that “when a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court.”