PRAVIN KUMAR PARASKUMAR GOKHROO Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for suspension of his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 pursuant to admission of his appeal and the sentence also having been suspended by order dated 12. 02. 2009. The petitioner has averred, inter alia, that he has a strong case in appeal as the prosecution is based merely on deposition of one panch-witness, who also had admitted that the applicant had not made any demand for bribe; that panchas were specifically selected by the C. B. I, and brought all the way from Gandhinagar to Bhavnagar for trapping him, rather than selecting local panch witnesses; that the applicant had taken major initiative resulting into recovery of Rs. 40 crores from ship breaking companies; and Advocate Shri a. D. Maru, who was appearing for the ship breaking companies before CEGAT, had practically arranged the trap with an obvious ulterior motive. It is also stated that acrs of the applicant would show an excellent track record throughout his career, without a single case against him. That even in the departmental inquiry, he was to be exonerated in view of the evidence recorded during such inquiry but due to the conviction, he may be punished. If conviction of the applicant were not suspended, it will bring down the morale of other honest officers in the department and no officer would take initiatives in the interest of the department, according to the petition.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit to inter alia state that he has been in service as Inspector, Grade-II Officer since 16. 03. 1992 in the Department of Central exercise and Customs, his ACRs of each year show him as highly efficient and performing officer without any history of any other complaint or departmental inquiry. All ACRs from the year 2002 to 2009, after the trap, reflect that he has been an honest and highly efficient officer and his integrity was never doubted. Now by virtue of the provisions of Article 311 (2) (a)of the Constitution and Rule 19 of Central civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1965, he is apprehending dismissal on account of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been suspended on 19. 06. 2001 and reinstated on 20. 10. 2001 and charge-sheeted on 04. 02. 2002. Large number of witnesses are stated to have been examined in the departmental inquiry.

(3.) IT is specifically averred in the additional affidavit, and not controverted, that evidently Shri A. D. Maru (the Advocate alleged to be behind the trap) and the ship breaking industry had heavily resented the fact that the applicant was able to recover crores of rupees for the department and Mr. Maru, who was an Advocate in those tax matters, had written letter accepting that the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the trap money, was provided by him. It is alleged that the applicant was sought to be framed for being a hurdle in the way of evasion of tax by the shipping industry. It is also stated that the applicant is the only earning member of his family of four, consisting his wife and school-going children. Therefore, if he were dismissed from service, it would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss to him. By annexing a copy of show-cause notice dated 12. 07. 2009, it is sought to be established that the Office of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar has already called upon the applicant to make his representation as to why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed, not on the basis of the evidence led during the departmental inquiry, but solely on the basis of the order dated 15. 01. 2009 of learned Special Judge, C. B. I. Court, Ahmedabad.