DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGHversusSTATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

                     [2015] 12 S.C.R. 263


                  DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH                             A
                               v.
 STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTIAR PRADESH THROUGH
              CHIEF SECRETARY
             (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 933 of 2014)               B

                    NOVEMBER 17, 2015
        [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
       COMPENSA T/ON: Writ petitioner was a member of the          C
 All India Services and rendered services to the respondent
 State and Government of India in various positions for about
 35 years - FIR was filed against petitioner and house raid
 conducted on the ground of owning of disproportionate assets
 beyond income, illegal mining and auction of Tendu Patta          D
 leaves causing loss of government revenue and.undue gain
 to the purchasers - Plea of petitioner that the State Vigilance
 Establishment ought to have taken prior permission and
 approval of Chief Secretary of the State for arresting and
raiding the house which was not obtained - Petitioner was          E
a/so suspended from his official duties - Claim for
compensation for loss of professional career, reputation and
for causing mental agony on the ground that he was illegally
detained by the authorities after implicating him in false
vigilance cases and dishonouring the High Court's directions       F
- Held: The case of petitioner was never referred to Vigilance
Committee and consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever
initiated against him - There was no evidence in respect o"f
offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner -
Petitioner had to suffer mental agony and loss of reputation       G
in the society besides huge financial loss - Normally,
Supreme Court is reluctant in determining or granting any
compensation while exercising its jurisdiction ul Article 32 of
the Constitution, b~t advises the parties to approach the          H
                             263
264        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A competent Courts for adjudicating those issues - However,
   in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and .
   the age and trauma suffered by the petitioner who spent about
    11 days in jail and fought the legal battle for about a period
   of 10 years before various forums and more particularly in
 B the absence of any proved charges of corruption against the
   petitioner, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs awarded as
   compensation to the petitioner on all forms.
          ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
 C         Role of Executive/Civil Servant/Public Servant -
      Discussed.
           Public employment - Public servant and corruption -
      Discussed.
 D         Disposing of the petition, the Court
         HELD: 1. A clear procedural lapse on the part of
   the respondent had caused mental agony and financial
   loss to the writ petitioner. As per the statement made by
 E the respondent before the High Court and by the order
   of the Special Judge, Anti Cor:ruption Act, all the actions
   against the applicant have been declared as null and
   void. But in the entire process, the petitioner had to
   suffer mental agony and loss of reputation in the society
 F besides huge financial loss. Even the retiral benefits
   were paid to the petitioner belatedly which was
   attributable to the negligence and irresponsible act of
   the State. [Para 9] [272-D-G]

 G       2. For effective functioning of a democracy, the role
   of Executive is very important. Civil servants and public
   officials are expected to maintain and strengthen the
   public's trust and confidence by demonstrating the high
   standards of professional competence, efficiency and
 H effectiveness by upholding the Constitution and rule of
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                    265
         U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

 law, keeping in mind the advancement of public good at         A
all times. Public employment being a public trust, the
 improper use of the public position for personal
advantage is considered as a serious breach of trust.
With the changing times, the role of Executive and
expectation of the citizens in governance also                  B
 underwent tremendous change. Dishonesty and
corruption are biggest challenges for any developing
country. If the public servant indulges in corruption, the
citizens who are vigilant in all aspects take note of this
seriously and develop a sense of distress towards the           C
Government and its mechanism, on a whole it sends a
very alarming message to the society at large and to the
common man in particular. In any civilized society, the
paramount consideration is the welfare of the society
                                                                0
and corruption is the biggest hindrance in that process.
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 demoralized. Some upright
officers resist corruption but they cannot alone change         E
the system which victimizes them through frequent
punitive transfers, threat to their families and fabricating,
foisting false cases. In such a scenario, until and unless
a fine balance is maintained between prosecuting a guilty
officer and protecting an innocent officer from vexatious,      F
frivolous and mala fide prosecution, it would be very
difficult for the public servant to discharge his duties in
free and fair ma'nner.. The efficiency of a public servant
demands that he should be free to perform his official
duties fearlessly and without any favour. The dire
    I
                                                                G
necessity is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the
honest officers while making the corrupt officers realize
that they are not above law. The protection to an honest
public servant is required not only in his interest but in
the larger interest of society. This Court time and again       H
266       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A extended assurance to the honest and sincere officers
  to perform their duty in a free and fair manner towards
  achieving a better society. [Paras 10-12] [273-A-H; 274-
  A-B]

B         3. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on
    behalf of the State at the time of hearing specifically
    indicates that the Fl Rs against the petitioner were lodged
    for the crimes relating to the petitioner's owning
    disproportionate assets beyond his income, illegal
C mining and auction of Tendu patta leaves causing loss
    of revenue to Government and undue gain to the
    purchasers. However, except making such averments,
    no material in support of allegati_ons leveled against the
    petitioner has been made available to this Court. On the
D · other hand, the order of the High Court clearly indicates
    that the Additional Advocate General for the State did not
    dispute the averments made by the petitioner that his
    case was never referred to Vigilance Committee and
    consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated
E against him. [Para 13] [274-C-F]

        4. Normally, this Court is reluctant in determining
  or granting any compensation while exercising its
  jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, but
F advises the parties to approach the competent Courts
  for adjudicating those issues. However, keeping in view
  the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
  taking into consideration the age and trauma suffered
  by the petitioner who spent about 11 days in jail and
G fought the legal battle for about a period of 10 years
  before various forums and more particularly in the
  absence of any proved charges of corruption against
  the petitioner, it is deemed fit that a lump sum amount of
H Rs.10 lakhs be awarded as compensation to the
  petitioner on all forms. [Para 14] [275-B-D]
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                       267
         U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.       A
933 of 2014

      UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

      Petitioner-In-person
                                                                   B.
    Dinesh Dwivedi, Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Abhishek
Chaudhary for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   c
     N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is filed by one Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, an
incumbent of Indian Forest Service (1969 Batch, U.P. Cadre)
who rendered services to the respondent State and
Government of India in various positions for about 35 years till   D
his retirement. The main contention of the petitioner is that he
was illegally detained by the respondent authorities after
implicating him in false vigilance cases and dishonouring the
High Court's directions. Because of the malicious, willful and
contemptuous acts of the State and clear abuse of legal            E
process, he and his family members had to suffer a great ordeal
of mental agony and heavy financial loss besides being
defamed in the society. Hence, he prayed this Court to express
displeasure over the violation of his family members'
fundamental rights .and to direct the respondent to pay            F
compensation for the loss of his professional career, reputation
and for causing mental agony.

      2. The relevant facts as submitted by the petitioner, who
argued his case before us in person, are that he has rendered G
about 35 years service to the State of U. P. and the Government
of India, with an unblemished record. He became a Member
of the National Board for Wild Life (for short "NBWL") on 22nd
September, 2003. The then Chief Minister of the respondent
State wanted the petitioner to take necessary steps so as to H
268       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A get the Benti Bird Sanctuary located at Kunda of Pratapgarh
  District denotified by the NBWL in its meeting held on 15th
  October, 2003. As the petitioner did not comply with the
  directions, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in the guise
  of a complaint by the MLA of his own party against the
B petitioner, issued directions to the Director General, Vigilance
  Establishment of the State to initiate a vigilance enquiry against
  him. As per the procedure envisaged for the purpose by D.O.
  Letter No.2020/39(2)-12(5)-74, dated 12-09-1997 (Annexure
  P-11 ), before a case is sent for State Vigilance Establishment,
C the approval of the State Vigilance Committee is a condition
  precedent, but the respondent State without following the
  prescribed procedure, conducted vigilance enquiry and
  removed him from hi.s post. The petitioner mov_ed the High ·
D Court by Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 to declare that the
  vigilance enquiry against him was done in clear violation of
  the prescribed procedure. The High Court by orders dated
  30th January, 2004 and 14th September, 2007 directed the
  State Vigilance Committee to carry out the enquiry
E proceedings, but the respondent did not comply with the
  directions of the High Court.

         3. While that being so, Writ Petition No.2985 of 2004 was
  filed before the High Court by an advocate arraying the
F petitioner as respondent No.4 therein. According to the
  petitioner, the writ petition (PIL) was got purportedly filed by
  the advocate who was working in the office of the then Advocate
  General, making false averments stating that the vigilance
  committee had already completed the enquiry in various issues
G a·gainst him. As a matter of fact, on the date of institution of the
  said writ petition, the enquiry against the petitioner was not
  even referred to the State Vigilance Committee. In the said
  petition, the High Court, on 25th June, 2004, passed an order
  which, inter alia, reads thus:
 H
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                        269
 U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.].

      "List this case on 12.02.2004, Vigilance Committee shall A
      carry on with the proceeding, but no final order shall be
      passed.
      It has been further averred that the vigilance committee
      had already completed the enquiry in various issues
                                                                  8
     against the respondent No.4, namely Dr. Ram Lakhan
     Singh and the matter is serious in nature in mis-utilization
     of Government funds in its own way. Nowhere the
     Division Bench vide its order dated 30.01.04 had stopped
     the State to lodge FIR, if prima facie, the Vigilance c
     Committee comes to the conclusion that some cognizable
     offence is committed by respondent No.4. It was always
     open for the State to lodge FIR, if prima facie, the
     Vigilance Committee had come to a conclusion that some
     cognizable offence has been committed by respondent D
     No.4, it is always open for the State to lodge an FIR, if
     some cognizable offence is found to have been
     committed by the Respondent No.4, and if it comes out
     from the report of the Vigilance Committee, not only the
     State but also any person can lodge an FIR und.er Section E
     154 Cr. P. C. with respect to a cognizable offel'lce said to
     have been committed by a particular person. The
     Division Bench has never stopped the State to lodge an
     FIR since the Departmental proceeding can very well
     continue simultaneously.                                  •  F
     With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands finally
     disposed of."
       4. Taking advantage of the order dated 251h June, 2004
passed by the High Court, FIR was registe_red against the G
petitioner and his house was raided .. The petitioner claims
that in the case of house raid and arrest of a Member of the All
India Services like that of the petitioner, the State Vigilance
Establishment is required to take prior permission and approval H
270         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.



A     of the Chief Secretary of the State, whereas in the case of the
      petitioner no such approval had been obtained. Afterwards,
      the respondent obtained approval by a pre-dated letter on 5th
      July, 2004, concealing the fact of raiding the petitioner's house
      on 25-06-2004 and the petitioner was finally arrested.
 B    Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered against the
      petitioner on the same day and the petitioner was suspended
      from his official duties.

         5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this
 C Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.236 of 2004 and this
   Court permitted the petitioner to approach the High Court
   afresh. Accordingly, the proceedings.were recommenced
   before the High Court in Wrrt Petrtion No.126 of 2004 and finally
   on 30 1hAugust, 2011, the High Court disposed of the matter,
 D inter alia, observing thus:

            "Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate
            in the presence of the petitioner Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh
            and Sri J. N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General for the
 E          State.
            The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that all
            actions and orders passed, if any, in violation of the
            Court's order dated 30-01-2004 be declared to be null
            and void and be quashed and that, in fact, the matter
 F
            was never referred to Vigilance Committee and
            consequently, no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated
            against the petitioner and, therefore, all actions taken/
            complaints lodged with the assumption that vigilance
            enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner, shall
 G
            stand void and non est.
            Sri J.N. Mathur does not dispute the aforesaid position
            and has no objection if such a direction is issued.
            We have gone through the documents on record and we
 H
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                    271
 U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

     find that it is a case where the petitioner has A
     undergone severe agony because of the incorrect
     statement about the Vigilance Committee being
     constituted and vigilance enquiry being initiated
     against him."
                                                                 B
      6. The petitioner finally submitted that he was prosecuted
without a plausible cause and only by malicious and willful
intention of the respondent, he had to suffer unlawful suspension
from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, loss of
full salary and retirement benefits which were withheld for a c
period of more than ten years. For causing him the loss of
professional career including that of the Member of NBWL,
reputation, great mental agony and heavy financial loss
besides defaming his character, the petitioner prayed for
compensation.                                                     D

       7. The State has filed a counter affidavit denying the
allegations made against the State and the learned senior
counsel appearing for the State submitted that the arrest and
suspension of the petitioner were done in accordance with E
proper procedure. The prior approval of the State Vigilance
Committee applies only in those cases where the
Administrative Department recommends the cases for·
investigation and such prior approval of State Vigilance
Committee is not required in cases as that of the petitioner F
where the Chief Minister directly orders for vigilance enquiry.
In the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was allegedly
owning disproportionate assets beyond his income, as being
a public servant, such offence attracts punishment under
Sections 13(1 )(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption G
Act, 1988. Even the sean:;;h operation by the team consisting
of officers from the Vigilance Department including lady officers
was conducted in consonance with the rules and regulations
honoring the human rights. Thus, the respondent had not
committed any illegality and there was no flouting of any orders H
272        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A of the Hon'ble High Court or blatant violation of fundamental
  right to life guaranteed to the petitioner.

          8. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that even all
  the retirement dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14.57
B lakhs and Rs.3,00,886/- as interest on gratuity for delay has
  been paid. In addition, the petitioner who retired on 31-12-
  2004 was being paid provisional pension w.e.f. 01-01-2005
  till his final pension was sanctioned on 28-08-2015. However,
  earned leave encashment of Rs.4,03, 106/- was sanctioned
C on 21-02-2014, but for the payment of interest on late payment
  of leave encashment, there is no provision in the rules and
  hence the interest could not be paid.

          9. Having heard the parties on either side, we find that
o the narration of the facts indicates a clear procedural lapse on
  the part of the respondent which caused mental agony and
  financial loss to the writ petitioner. Though there is no material
  before us indicating the involvement of the Chief Minister in
  initiating the proceedings against the petitioner for not fulfilling
E his request, as alleged by the petitioner, however, the initiation
  of vigilance proceedings and statements made before the High
  Court by officers of the respondent State led to the arrest of
  the petitioner causing great loss to him. Atthe end of the day,
  as per the statement made by the respondent before the High
F Court and by the order of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption
  Act, Lucknow (Annexure P-31) on 15-02-2012, all the actions
  against the applicant have been declared as null and void.
  But in the entire process, the petitioner had to suffer mental
  agony and loss of reputation in the society besides huge
G financial loss. Even the retrial benefits have been paid to the
  petitioner belatedly which is attributable to the negligence and
  irresponsible act of the State.

       10. A public servant in a democracy should be a guardian
H of morals. He is entrusted with higher responsibilities of a
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                         273
 U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY[N. V. RAMANA, J.]

public office and they contribute their best for the just and A.
humane society. We feel that for effective functioning of a
democracy, the role of Executive is very important. Civil
servants and public officials are expected to maintain and
strengthen the public's trust and confidence by demonstrating
the high standards of professional competence, efficiency and B
effectiveness by upholding the Constitution and rule of law,
keeping in mind the advancement of public good at all times.
Public employment being a public trust, the improper use of
the public position for personal advantage is considered as a
serious breach of trust. With the changing times, the role of C
Executive and expectation of the citizens in governance also
underwent tremendous change.

       11. Dishonesty and corruption are biggest challenges
for any developing country. If the public servant indulges in        D
corruption, the citizens who are vigilant in all aspects take note
of this seriously and develop a sense of distress towards the
Government and its mechanism, on a whole it sends a very
alarming message to the society at large and to the common
man in particular. In any civilized society, the paramount           E
consideration is the welfare of the society and corruption is
the biggest hindrance in that process. 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               F
demoralized. Some upright officers resist corruption but they
cannot alone change the system which victimizes them through
frequent punitive transfers, threat to their families and
fabricating, foisting false cases.

      12. In such a scenario, until and unless we maintain a G
fine balance between prosecuting a guilty officer and protecting
an innocent officer from vexatious, frivolous and mala fide
prosecution, it would be very difficult for the public servant to
discharge his duties in free and fair manner. The efficiency of H
274          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A a public servant demanqs that he should be free to perform
  his official duties fearlessly and without any favour. The dire
  necessity is to fill in the existing gap by protecting the honest
  officers while making the corrupt officers realize that they are
  not above law. The protection to an honest public servant is
B required not only in his interest but in the larger interest of
  society. This Court time and again extended assurance to the
  honest and sincere officers to perform their duty in a free and
  fair manner towards achieving a better society.

C            13. In the case on hand, the counter affidavit filed on
      behalf of the State at the time of hearing specifically indicates
      that the Fl Rs against the petitioner were lodged for the crimes
      relating to the petitioner's owning disproportionate assets
      beyond his income, illegal mining and auction of Tendu patta
D     leaves causing loss of revenue to Government and undue gain
      to the purchasers. However, except making such averments,
      no material in support of allegations leveled against the
      petitioner has been made available to this Court. On the other
      hand, the order of the High Court passed on 301h August, 2011
 E    in Writ Petition No.126 of 2004 (Annexure P-30), clearly
      indicates that the Additional Advocate General for the State
      did not dispute the averments made by the petitioner that his
      case was never referred to Vigilance Committee and
 F    consequently no vigilance enquiry was ever initiated against
      him. The High Court order further reveals that the Additional
      Advocate General also expressed no objection to declare that
      all actions taken and complaints lodged against the petitioner
      shall stand void and non est in the eye of law. Thus, in the light
G     of the foregoing, it is clear that the defence taken by the State
      in the counter affidavit is only to justify its illegal action against
      the petitioner, without producing any material supporting the
      stand taken by them.

            14. It appears that after his discharge from the Court
 H
 DR. RAM LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF                          275
 U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

proceedings, the petitioner had written a letter to the Chief A
Minister on 121h May, 2011 seeking an amount of Rs.4 % crores
towards compensation and damages. Normally, this Court is
reluctant in determining or granting any compensation while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution,
but advises the parties to approach the competent Courts for B
adjudicating those issues. However, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into
consideration the age and trauma suffered by the petitioner
who spent about 11 days in jail and fought the legal battle for
about a period of 10 years before various forums and more C
particularly in the absence of any proved charges of corruption
against the petitioner, we deem it fit that a lump sum amount
of Rs.10 lakhs be awarded as compensation to the petitioner
on all forms.
                                                                  D
       15. Accordingly, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to
pay a lump sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner within a period
of three months towards compensation.

      16. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.           E

Devika Gujral                                 Petition disposed of.