Dear Friends,

Sharing with you an important recent judgement from S.C.

No sympathy should be shown to any government employee indulging in corruption and the person should be dismissed from his job, the Supreme Court has held while awarding compulsory retirement to a Life Insurance Corporation of India cashier for misappropriating Rs 533 twenty-five years ago.

A bench of justices Vikramajit Sen and Prafulla C Pant said misappropriation of small amount cannot be a ground for awarding lighter punishment.

It said that any sympathy shown to the accused in such cases is uncalled for and opposed to public interest.

"The amount misappropriated may be small or large, it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant," the bench said adding, "Time and again, this court has consistently held that in such matters no sympathy should be shown by the courts".

It said that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not harsh or disproportionate to the guilt in the case.

In this case a policy holder had deposited with Rs 533 with the cashier towards half-yearly insurance premium in 1990 but it was not deposited with the LIC. When an inquiry was initiated, the cashier deposited the amount with a back dated entry after three months.



From India, Kakinada

Attached Files

Dear PBS Kumar,
What I am writing is not a question to you in person. Therefore, do not take it personally.
If Supreme Court were to be that strict on corruption then it has granted bail to the politicians who were convicted on corruption. Today the convicted politicians are enjoying the cool comforts of their home. What public interest is served by granting bail to those who were convicted for amassing huge wealth disproportionate to their known source of income?
Supreme Court needs to take inclement view against convicted politicians. When public figures are put behind the bars, it serves a message to one and all.
Dinesh Divekar

From India, Bangalore
Dear Dinesh Divekar,
I partially agree with your views. However please understand supreme course says only on proven cases sympathy should not be shown and not during the pendency of proceedings before judiciary. Therefore it can not be construed that judiciary is strict only on common man and not on powerful big shots.
Hope I have not offended your feelings.

From India, Madras
Dear Mr Ravichandiran,

Of course judiciary is lax towards hi-fi and mighty Mr Ravichandiran. Look at the under-trails languishing in the jails. Look at the Lt Col Prasad S Purohit. He has been languishing in the jail for more than five years without any charge sheet filed against him. Have you read his letter to Prime Minister of India?

What about Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur? She is suffering due to cancer yet no bail for her? However, Supreme Court was more than eager to grant bail to a Chief Minister who was convicted on corruption charges. Why this partiality?

So many Chief Justices have come and gone but none has done anything to reduce the judicial tardiness. Who suffers most because of the tardiness? Poor or rich? Common persons or mighty?

Let us not be naive Mr Ravichandiran. Let us accept it that we are in complete judicial mess today. For this mess, polity as much as judiciary is responsible. Judiciary is enjoying their slumber and it can wake up only when movement like Anna Hazare will happen. Let us not be contributors to their self-serving attitude.

My above views are beyond the purview of this forum nevertheless, since the subject came up for discussion, I could not stop pulling my punches.


Dinesh Divekar

From India, Bangalore
While appreciating your sense of justice, concern for its uniform and timely dispensation and straight-forward view as a responsible citizen of the country, Mr.Dinesh,I wish to high-light the permissible legal process obtaining as of now. It is indisputable that the gravity of the charges of corrupt practices against politicions holding high offices is very severe and such people resort to all means at their disposal to buy out time and dilute the criminal proceedings against them. In spite of this, some of them are convicted and amendments of far-reaching effect are brought out simultaneously in the appropriate laws curbing their immunity to political activities. But the right to appeal available in law to a convicted person can not be simply brushed aside based on the findings of the trial court. In this context, I faintly remember an observation of Justice V.R.Krishnayyar that the verdict of the Supreme Court can not be supreme just because of its supremacy but because of the fact it is the final Court of Appeal. Even the cited Supreme Court verdict is only the outcome of the finality of the legal process of appeal.
From India, Salem
Dear Mr Umakanthan.M,

I am not painting the entire judiciary with brush neither am I saying it bad per se. Nevertheless, wheels of judiciary move at fast pace for high and mighty. The very latest case is of Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand. Just an hour after the Gujarat High Court dismissed the couple’s plea for anticipatory bail, Hon'ble Supreme Court gave restraining order in oral plea. Her lawyer was Mr Kapil Sibal, former law minister. Can you expect such speedy redress for any ordinary mortal?

What happened to the convicts of Bhopal Gas Tragedy? Though it was a genocide, all that they got was sentence of two years. Leave aside just the quantum of punishment but then within an hour all the seven convicted officials of Union Carbide were released on bail. You may go through the following links, if you wish to refresh that news:

Bhopal gas tragedy: 8 found guilty, get bail - The Times of India

Is Bhopal Gas Tragedy A Street Crime? By Gopal Krishna

Indian legal system or judiciary exactly fits into Spanish proverb. It says "Laws, like the spider's web, catch the fly and let the hawk go free."


Dinesh Divekar

From India, Bangalore
Dear Mr. Dinesh Divekar ji,
Appreciated your comment. But one thing as a HR - IR related issues either Government or Private persons who involves in the guilty of misconduct , the verdict of courts are like this. Accordingly the cases will be published in various "Labour Law Journals" and also in news papers . The said case is already published in Jan 7th 2015 TIMES OF INDIA. So all the I,R issues handling persons should understand the case law.

From India, Kakinada
I fully agree with the views expressed by Shri Dinesh Divekar.The rich and powerful are able to delay the court proceeding for eons.Look at the poaching of a black buck in Rajasthan and running over six roadside dwellers by a Bollywood star.Both cases are about twenty years old and still running ! Is it not a court's responsibilty to deliver to see that judgements involving deaths are atleast delivered in time ?
From India, New Delhi
Shri Dinesh Divekar,
I fully endorse your views. When Teesta Setlwad & her husband's case for bail was filed against Delhi High Court Judgement denying the same, what was such a great hurry to hear this case and grant bail to her....?? Same teesta and her husband were in hiding before that to avoid arrest..Is this proof of their innocence?
A S Bhat

From India, Pune
Sorry! I could never support the judgment at all. Law-makers themselves has got a lot many strong points to go against this particular judgment. LIC is future, compulsory retirement is present. It is the matter of harassing somebody and their family on the name of law.
From India, Delhi

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™