Mere violation of departmental norms not criminal misconduct by public servant under PC Act: Kerala High Court

A mere violation of rules and departmental norms does not constitute criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), ruled the Kerala High Court recently [C Surendrananth & Anr. v State of Kerala & Anr.]..Justice K Babu explained that a "dishonest intention" must be there on the part of the accused to make out an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. "Dishonest intention is sine qua non to attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant," the Court said in its January 17 order. .The Court made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod against two Port officers who were accused of certain irregularities in the award of a tender. .The allegations centered around their roles as Port Conservator and Deputy Director of Ports, respectively, during the award of a tender for manual dredging and the sale of port sand in Kasaragod district.The two Port officers were part of a committee that allegedly permitted the award of the tender to four cooperative societies that did not fulfill certain prerequisites to be eligible to secure the tender. .The accused argued that there was no evidence that they obtained any pecuniary advantage or caused any loss to the government by their alleged acts. The prosecution countered that the petitioners (accused) had violated tender procedures with dishonest intent..The High Court, however, did not find merit in the prosecution's stance. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any pecuniary advantage gained by the petitioners by their alleged acts. The alleged irregularities pointed to violations of tender rules rather than corruption, the Court said. The High Court observed further that the prosecution did not provide any material showing a dishonest motive or any unlawful gains by the accused.Given that there was no evidence indicating corruption or dishonest intent on the part of the accused, the High Court allowed the petitions by the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings against them. .The petitioners were represented by advocates Athul Shaji and Anwin John Antony.The State and the de facto complainant were represented by Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) Rajesh A and Public Prosecutor Rekha..[Read Order]