SCAM/CORRUPTION – 2010 - Indian Social Institute

dealings. “I have cautioned the managements that action would not only be taken against the touts who
indulge in corruption by name-dropping but also against them for using touts to get their jobs done,” he
told journalists here on Monday. “Instead of waiting to get their work done through unfair means using
touts, they [managements] should use the money for creating infrastructure and faculty for improving the
institution so that it gets recognition on merit,” Mr. Azad said. In February, Mr. Azad wrote to the deans
and principals of all medical colleges, urging them to be vigilant against touts using his or any Health
Ministry official's name to get recognition for medical colleges through the MCI. The malpractice was
expected to end after the MCI was superseded by the six-member Board of Governors, and its president
Ketan Desai arrested by the CBI on charges of corruption. “The Board of Governors has been given the
final powers for approval from the MCI through the Ordinance and the cases need not come to the
Ministry,” Mr. Azad said. However, with the recognition process at its peak before the new academic
session starts, unscrupulous elements are said to be in action again assuring clearance in lieu of money.
The Ministry had received close to 80 complaints of malpractices since February from southwest India,
where 80 per cent of the country's private medical colleges were situated. Action was initiated against
these after the complaints were forwarded to the respective Chief Ministers and heads of police
departments, Mr. Azad said. The Minister asked students to come forward with their complaints regarding
lack of infrastructure or faculty in their college. On the Board of Governors seeking more time for clearing
pending cases, Mr. Azad said the panel would also look into complaints received by it regarding undue
favour or malpractices in refusing recognition. (The Hindu 1/6/10)
Boot out corrupt employees, says SC (5)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that dismissal is the only form of punishment for those involved
in corruption and misappropriation of public money, even if the embezzled amount is meagre. The apex
court said that though punishment should be proportionate to the crime, in cases of corruption, dismissal
is the only punishment that could be imposed on a government employee. "We do not find any force in
the submissions made by Dr J N. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the employee, that for embezzlement
of such a petty amount, punishment of dismissal could not be justified for the reason that it is not the
amount embezzled by a delinquent employee but the mens rea (guilty intention) to misappropriate the
public money," a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said in their verdict. The apex
court gave the judgement while upholding the dismissal of a bus conductor Suresh Chandra Sharma of
the UP State Road Transport Corporation. Sharma was dismissed from service by the Corporation after a
departmental inquiry held him guilty of collecting fares from about 25 passengers but not remitting them to
the official exchequer. The Uttaranchal High Court, however, had quashed the dismissal on the ground
that the inquiry was vitiated as the authorities did not examine the passengers and ordered Sharma's
reinstatement, but without any back wages. Aggrieved by the order, both the corporation and the
employee filed appeals in the apex court. Upholding the Corporation's appeal, the apex court citing its
1996 judgement in the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan Bihari case said, "In cases
involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. "Any sympathy shown in such
cases is totally 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 apex court further cited the Vinod Kumar Vs
UPSRTC case (2008) that "the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal." The
bench said that in a domestic inquiry, complicated principles and procedures laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act need not be strictly adhered to. "The only right of a
delinquent employee is that he must be informed as to what are the charges against him and he must be
given full opportunity to defend himself on the said charges. "More so, the High Court is under an
obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by
a domestic tribunal. In case the judgment and order of the High Court is found not duly supported by
reasons, the judgment itself stands vitiated," the apex court added. (The Financial Express 2/6/10)
CBI finds no evidence against ‘corrupt’ officers (5)
New Delhi, June 05, 2010: A year after top intelligence agencies complained to the Prime Minister’s
Office that some officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd were hand-in-glove with Chinese firm Huawei and
helped it win a multi-crore telecom contract in 2006, the CBI has said there was no evidence to prove the
corruption charges. “All the records were found to be in order and there was no evidence that the officers
dealing with the contract of a 63-million mobile network in 2006 favoured the Chinese firm,” a CBI source
said. A status report was recently submitted to the higher-ups, the source added. In 2009, when the stateowned
BSNL was in the process of awarding a part of 93-million mobile lines (each line is equivalent to
one mobile connection) contract to Huawei, the Intelligence Bureau submitted a complaint to the PMO
along with “credible leads” against the officers, which was also based on phone intercepts. Expressing