SC double whammy for Maya

Gets Rap For Inquiry Into Police Recruitment Scam & Demolition Drive

The Mayawati government’s initial success run in judiciary met with some reverses on Friday as the Supreme Court questioned its decision to set up a DGP-level inquiry into alleged scam in recruitment of 20,000 constables before sacking all of them.

It also virtually reversed its earlier interim order green lighting the state’s decision to pull down unsafe government buildings in Lucknow and renovating others, mainly for the purpose of expanding Ambedkar park. But the SC’s interim order appears to have come too late as the government, armed with the earlier clearance, has completed most of the demolition work and fresh constructions.

The orders came from different benches. While constable recruitment scam was posted before a bench comprising Justices D K Jain and R M Lodha, the stay on further demolition came from a bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi.

The bench of Justices Jain and Lodha was critical of the manner in which the Mayawati government had instituted a DGP-level inquiry committee. ‘‘By what authority was such a committee constituted? Could the DGP do this,’’ were the questions posed by the bench to UP counsel, senior advocate P P Rao and additional advocate general Shail Kumar Dwivedi.

The counsel said additional DGP Shailja Kant Mishra had gone into the alleged irregularities in the recruitment and acting on his report, the government had cancelled the appointments made in violation of rules and regulations.

The UP government had challenged the decision of the Allahabad HC quashing the government’s order appointing the Mishra committee and ordering CBI probe into it. Before the SC, the CBI had expressed inability to take up the probe citing heavy workload and the politics involved in it. Last year, the apex court had stayed another order of the Allahabad HC stalling the Mayawati government’s decision to renovate or demolish dilapidated government bungalows and buildings in Lucknow for expansion of Ambedkar park.

The HC had passed the restraint order on the government on a PIL filed by NGO Gomti Nagar Jan Kalyan Maha Samiti, which alleged that the government’s decision, which followed arbitrary changes to the Lucknow Master Plan, could spell disaster for the city’s greens.

Topping the list of demolitions is 13A Mall Avenue bungalow, which the urban development department had declared unsafe.

The petitioner before the HC had alleged that the state wanted to demolish it as the ruling BSP wanted to convert it into a memorial for party founder Kanshi Ram.
Source:- The Times of India 28 Feb. 09 Delhi P.14

PARTNERS IN CRIME :‘Wife guilty too if uses graft money’

The spouse of a government officer in a corruption case who has benefited from his\her ill-gotten wealth is equally guilty, the Bombay high court has ruled.

Justice V R Kingaonkar recently held Dhule resident Mangalabai Wagh guilty of abetment in a disproportionate assets case for allowing her husband Bhaskar Wagh to acquire several properties in her name.

The judge upheld a trial court verdict sentencing Mangalabai to three years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 2 lakh.

The high court also dismissed an appeal by Wagh challenging his punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3 lakh awarded by the trial court. ‘‘Mangala held shares and immovable properties as well as a vehicle in her name despite not having any source of income,’’ said the judge. ‘‘It will have to be said that she abetted the commission of offence of criminal misconduct by (her husband) Wagh.’’ Mangala had at the time of trial claimed that one of the properties on which her husband had built a palatial bungalow had been gifted to her by her father.

She further said that her father had given her gold ornaments — approximately 30 tolas — as ‘stridhan’ at the time of her marriage. However, she failed to prove this in court. Though the Prevention of Corruption Act under which the Waghs were charged are mainly applicable against public servants, the judge referred to a Supreme Court judgment that said that there was no bar to prosecute a non-public servant for abetment of the offence. Mangala was charged under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, that provides for booking an accused for abetment in case there is no specific provision for punishment.

The case against the Waghs were that they possessed movable and immovable properties, including a fleet of cars, worth over Rs 20 lakh, that were acquired between 1984 and 1989. Wagh who worked as a cashier in the minor irrigation department of the zilla parishad during this period, drew a monthly salary of just Rs 1,630. The trial court found that Wagh could not explain disproportionate assets to the tune of over Rs 9 lakh.

Though Wagh claimed that the assets were from agricultural income, he could not provide proof for the same. ‘‘Since 1983 onwards, Wagh started purchasing, one after another, immovable properties and his lifestyle changed entirely,’’ observed the judge, pointing out the large number of vehicles that he purchased. ‘‘It is highly improbable that it was within the lawful means of the Class-III government servant to acquire and maintain a fleet of vehicles,’’ said the judge while holding the Waghs guilty of criminal misconduct under the anti-corruption law.

The Times of India 9 April 2008, P 17 Delhi
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd

For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in