Citing C Rajagopalachari, Orissa High Court denies promotion to police officers over delayed property declaration

The high court started its order by referring to the words of C Rajagopalachari addressed to Mahatma Gandhi, as recorded in his book- Jail Diary: “We ought all to know that Swaraj will not at once or think… come, be better government or greater happiness for the people. Elections and their corruptions, injustice.. tyranny of wealth and inefficiency of administration will make a hell of life so soon as freedom is given to us.”

The bench quoted Kofi A Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, who wrote about corruptions saying it is an insidious plague. (Image is enhanced using AI)

“It is in the light of the ever-growing cancer of corruption and bribery, several preventive measures have been taken by the state entities. One of them is to bring probity and transparency in the realm of public service,” the court said in its February 19 order.

‘Cause of public administration’

• The court quoted Kofi A Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, who wrote about corruption and said, “it is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies”.
• It was further pointed out by Annan that the corruption undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organised crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
• Merely because there is some pressure from some quarters, such relaxation cannot be granted mindlessly.
• Multiple exceptions and multiple extensions would swallow the relevant rule itself.
• The cause of public administration will be better served by sustaining the stand of the government than by disallowing it.

• Whether to grant an extension is essentially a matter of state policy, which involves a number of factors that are not judicially assessable since the judges lack the required administrative expertise.
• The apex court, in several decisions, has expressed its deep “anguish” against the growing trends of corruption and bribery in all branches of “powers that be”.
• The court looked at Justice G.P. Singh’s book- Principles of Statutory of Interpretation to understand whether the said rule is directory or mandatory in nature.
• The high court noted that Singh says that the question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the “intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed”.

‘Noting but a ruse’

• The property declarations were not filed by the petitioners during the first and second extensions.
• The plea of the petitioners that they could not fill out the declaration in the extended time because they were all in the field work is nothing but a “ruse”.
• The rules of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, are promulgated to achieve a “laudable” object. Such rules, therefore, have to be enforced in their “letter and spirit“, else their object will be defeated.
• When the said rules provide for taking disciplinary action for non-filing of property declaration and further denial of promotion on that count alone, the orders bestowing benefit on the “unscrupulous” public servants run in conflict with the intent and policy of those rules.
• A premium cannot be placed on illegality.

• The relevant rules regarding the said property declaration and promotion have “mandatory” language, while stating that the consequences of non-filing of the declarations are “severe”.
• The court noted that the declaration goes to Lokayukta and to the public domain.
• The said single judge’s order is made during the pendency of appeals and therefore, cannot be treated as creating any concrete right in favour of the employees, when the main matter was yet to be heard.
• The employees’ argument that the government’s act of extending the period for filing the property declaration twice created a “legitimate expectation” to have one more extension is “ridiculous”.
• The things done in statutory discretion are not a “breeding ground” for any expectation which is less legal.

‘Error in previous orders’

• Additional Government Advocate Satya Brata Mohanty argued that the provisions of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, as a matter of policy requires every civil servant to declare assets and liabilities on or before the 31st day of January of every year or within such period as may be extended by the government.
• Mohanty further added that this rule, by its very nature, is “mandatory”, but the trial court failed to properly analyse the same and made an error of “gross magnitude” which requires the interference of the present court.
• He also pointed out that the trial court’s order could not be upheld as it was neither authorised nor justified in the teeth of said rules.

‘No fault in belated filing’

• Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Asok Ku Mohanty submitted that the said rules requiring the filing of the property declaration, even if held to be “mandatory”, the prescription of period for doing it is only “directory” and therefore, belated filing of the declaration cannot be “faulted”.
• Asok further claimed that the petitioners are entitled to stake their claim for promotion to the post of inspector of police since they filed their property declaration within the extended period.
• It was further highlighted that the petitioners skipped the prescribed date for filing of property declaration because of field work, and therefore, their belated filing has to be accepted as sufficient compliance, keeping in view justice and equity and more particularly, in the absence of any prejudice to the public interest.