MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently sought a response from the state government on whether there are existing guidelines prescribing the limit of cash that may be possessed by government servants while on duty and the feasibility of introducing uniform guidelines or a government order in this regard.
The necessity of carrying substantial amounts of cash to the office requires to be addressed by the government by fixing an appropriate threshold limit, Justice B Pugalendhi observed. Such guidelines may strengthen the government’s objective of achieving corruption-free governance, besides ensuring that government servants are not unnecessarily harassed, he added. He asked the government, particularly the human resources department, to express its views on the matter at the next hearing on September 3.
Justice Pugalendhi raised the above queries while hearing the petitions filed by former sub-registrar of Mukkodal in Tirunelveli, C Kala, relating to the disciplinary proceedings pending against her before a tribunal in Tirunelveli. The proceedings were initiated after she was found possessing Rs 45,000 cash while on duty, during a surprise raid conducted by the officials of vigilance and anti-corruption on January 8, 2021.
Though she had explained that she carried the money for marriage expenses, she was being harassed by way of the above proceedings; she told the court and also sought transfer of the proceedings to the tribunal in Nagercoil.
Noting that similar cases registered by the vigilance authorities even for possession of Rs 1,500 are pending before the court, the judge asked the additional advocate general to get instructions regarding the maximum amount of cash a government servant may carry while on duty and the guidelines framed in that regard.
The AAG informed that the Inspector General of Registration had issued a circular in 2009 to maintain registers on the amount of cash carried by officials in the department while on duty. Stating that there is no common guideline on the issue covering all government employees in the state, the judge issued the above direction.
