Madras HC sets aside cooperative sub-registrar’s dismissal in 2001 bribery case

According to sources, a DVAC team conducted a search in Ramamoorthy’s office during a review meeting and recovered Rs 2,040 from him. However, he was charged with receiving Rs 6,725 illegal gratification from the salesmen.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.File Photo
Updated on
2 min read

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently set aside an order which confirmed the dismissal of a sub-registrar of cooperative department in Madurai for allegedly receiving Rs 6,725 bribe from salesmen of PDS shops in 2001. The petitioner S Ramamoorthy was dismissed in 2008 and filed an appeal in 2020. He died during the pendency of appeal.

A bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and KK Ramakrishnan allowed the appeal filed by Ramamoorthy challenging the confirmation of his punishment by the single judge in November 2019, and directed authorities to pay all consequential benefits to his family within four months.

According to sources, a DVAC team conducted a search in Ramamoorthy’s office during a review meeting and recovered Rs 2,040 from him. However, he was charged with receiving Rs 6,725 illegal gratification from the salesmen. The judges observed that foundation facts and charges against Ramamoorthy do not go together.

The judges observed that while Rs 2,040 was recovered from him, they were unable to understand how authorities charged him for Rs 6,725 illegal gratification. Also, they noted that the day of the review meeting when the raid was conducted — December 31, 2001, was new year’s eve.

Ramamoorthy had explained that he had Rs 1,190 in his pocket to buy shawls and sweets for his superiors in view of the new year, the judges pointed out. The judges said and opined that Ramamoorthy’s explanation was convincing.

Though Ramamoorthy admitted guilt before the vigilance officer who conducted the raid, he stated in the appeal that he was compelled to do so due to fear of arrest. Moreover, only three salesmen had given statements against Ramamoorthy, and all three worked in the cooperative society which had been penalised by him, the judges observed.

Adding that the department inquiry report was also in favour of Ramamoorthy, the judges allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to pay all consequential benefits to Ramamoorthy’s family.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com