Can an official who confessed to bribery be reinstated?

Mitter was arrested by UT Vigilance Department under the Prevention of Corruption Act, besides Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on June 3 last year. According to the challan in FIR number one, Rs 3,19,540 were scrawled against Mitter8217;s name in the diaries of the alleged middlemen. He was reinstated as superintending engineer on October 30, 1998, just a day after becoming an approver in the case.

In his statement recorded by UT Chief Judicial Magistrate Sant Parkash in his own handwriting, Mitter had stated: quot;During the time of my investigation in the Vigilance Cell I was shown photocopies of the two diaries books of account maintained by Sunil Kalia and Dinesh Sharma, Suresh Sharma the alleged middlemen 8230;. I can recollect that the enteries made in my name receiving the kickbacks from the said middlemen are correct8230;.quot;

He had also stated: quot;So far as the money received by me is concerned, the same was spent by me on various family requirementsquot;.

UT officials say his reinstatement is in the quot;larger interest of publicquot; 8212; to bring culprits to the book. Legal masters, however, insist that permitting an accused to continue at the same post even after admitting the acceptance of kickbacks is not only quot;surprisingquot; but also quot;unprecedentedquot;.

They say: quot;Suspension is resorted to for preventing an accused from hampering independent investigations in the case. But ordinarily a person is not reinstated till the case is finalised and a person acquitted.quot;

quot;Facts, and legal opinion, must have been taken into consideration before the decision to reinstate the SE was taken, I am sure,quot; justifies Advisor to the UT Administrator Vineeta Rai. quot;But we are not averse to taking fresh legal advice regarding Mitter8217;s reinstatementquot;.

Refusing to comment on the issue, former UT Home Secretary-cum-chief vigilance officer Anuradha Gupta says that she quot;is no more associated with the Chandigarh Administrationquot;. Claiming himself to have been quot;pardoned by the courtquot;, Mitter, meanwhile, explained his reinstatement to be quot;in accordance with lawquot;.

Explaining the reason behind the delay in his making the quot;confessional statementquot;, Mitter had justified before the Magistrate: quot;Earlier, I didn8217;t come forward to disclose the true facts as I was receiving threatening calls. Now, my conscious has awakened me and I have come forward voluntarily and without pressure to disclose the true facts of the present casequot;.

After recording his statement, the CJM had observed: quot;8230;I believe that the confessional statement is voluntary. It was taken in my presence and in my own handwriting and has been read over and explained to him, who admits the same to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by himquot;.

Meanwhile, legal experts maintain that turning into an approver does not entitle an accused to be acquitted. quot;The trial judge may, or may not, agree with the statement made by the accused,quot; says Punjab and Haryana High Court advocate Ranjan Lakhanpal. quot;In these circumstances, the accused should not have been reinstatedquot;.

Janta Party8217;s local unit president and High Court advocate Ajay Jagga says, quot;The reinstatement may not have been illegal, but it sure is sending wrong signals; you accept kickbacks and get away with it by becoming an approver.quot;