Sending a strong message that it will protect honest public servants who owe no fear or favour to their political masters, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs. 10 lakh for foisting vigilance cases and illegally detaining a senior Forest Department officer who reportedly refused to comply with then Chief Minister’s request to denotify a bird sanctuary in 2003.
Samajwadi party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav was the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister between August 2003 and May 2007.
In a 14-page judgment, a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana gave the State government three months’ time to pay the compensation amount to Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, a 1969 Uttar Pradesh cadre Indian Forest Service officer with 35 years of service.
ADVERTISEMENT
An order from the Supreme Court directing the State government to pay compensation is rare. Justice Ramana, who authored the verdict, gave the reason that the apex court wanted to convey to the executive that the highest judiciary is avowed to “protect an honest public servant”.
The judgment recounted Mr. Singh's narration of his 10-year ordeal, starting with his suspension and arrest after false vigilance cases were registered against him without taking prior approval from the State Vigilance Committee as mandated under law.
He had also suffered detention of 11 days in jail, all at the fag end of over three decades of unblemished public service in the State forest department, the judgment said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court recorded his statement that trouble started after he became a member of the Wildlife Board in September 2003 and refused the then Chief Minister's request to “take necessary steps to get the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh District de-notified by the Wildlife Board in its meeting held on October 15, 2003”.
Though the Supreme Court ultimately recorded that there is no material to show the “involvement of the Chief Minister” in initiating the proceedings against Mr. Singh, the judgment reproduces the State's defence that prior approval from the State Vigilance Committee is not required in cases “where the Chief Minister directly orders for vigilance enquiry”.
The judgment held that “improper use of the public position for personal advantage is considered as a serious breach of trust”.
It spoke of the importance striking a fine balance between punishing a corrupt public servant and protecting the honest ones.
“If the corrupt public servant is not punished, then it will have a negative impact on the honest public servants who will be discouraged and demoralised. Some upright officers resist corruption but they cannot alone change the system which victimises them through frequent punitive transfers, threat to their families and fabricating, foisting false cases,” Justice Ramana wrote in the verdict.