The media loves exposing and highlighting allegations of misfeasance in public life/office. The agony and ignominy of innocent, upright officers being “framed” by malicious design invariably goes unnoticed and unexposed.
We have reposed enormous faith in the CBI (a creature of the Delhi Police Establishment Act). A vast majority of Indians think that if the CBI investigates, the truth shall be unearthed and properly placed before the Trial Court, irrespective of persons or personalities involved. This results in repeated public demand for a CBI inquiry into anything that the public at large thinks should be “independently” investigated.
The CBI in its chargesheet relating to the 2G scam in the context of the additional spectrum allocation case in 2002 had alleged that the then Telecom Secretary and three other companies had entered into a conspiracy for allocation of additional spectrum at a discounted revenue sharing rate against the authorised norms and this had resulted in an undue favour to the tune of Rs 846.44 crore, causing a corresponding loss to the Union Government. The allegation was that there was some kind of criminal conspiracy further leading to offences under the PC Act. At the time of framing the charges, the Trial Judge held that the chargesheet was fabricated, full of distorted facts and an attempt to mislead the court. The Trial Judge further said that a fabricated chargesheet was drafted to create an impression that the demand for additional spectrum began only at a particular juncture when a particular Minister took charge of the office as the Telecom Minister. The Trial Judge went on to say, “I find that there is no incriminating material on record against the accused and the accused deserve to be discharged.”
While in public interest and out of public concern, the cases of misuse of power, misfeasance in public life and corruption in these spheres need to be fought out at any cost, instances of the type narrated above disturb one’s conscience.
In any Government of any political party, when you are not towing the lines of powers that be, you must be prepared to be framed with fictitious charges with obvious intention of (a) maligning you; (b) harming your reputation; and (c) stigmatise the records relating to your career through oblique and collateral means. It is difficult for any average person to fight this organised onslaught. When the allegations are properly scrutinised, it would be found that innocent persons have very often been implicated through malicious abuse of public power duly publicised by the propagandistic media. It is heartening to learn that the Trial Court, in the case of Shyamal Ghosh and others, has directed the CBI to conduct an enquiry against the erring officials and take appropriate action. With great respect, this is one of the best examples of permitting erring executives to have the benefit to be adjudged by other superior executives of the same class. This partly provides adequate avenues for protection to the existing systemic perversions.
Another example is more perplexing. An officer posted at a station ‘x’ went as an Observer of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to different place “y”. This particular officer was at that point of time having a serious difference with the powers that be in the Secretariat regarding the contents of certain vital policy matters and was not subservient enough. The officer travelled from place ‘x’ to ‘y’ in a Government vehicle as an Observer of the ECI. The officer was not dishonest and pliable. When the particular Government/Chief Minister wanted this particular upright and pro-people officer to be “fixed and framed”, the most obedient Chief of Vigilance reported that the officer was dishonest because another Government vehicle had travelled from the headquarters of the concerned officer to the place where the officer was camping as the Election Observer: In short, the proverbial allegation of misuse of Government vehicle.
The Chief of Vigilance opined that this was a case of misuse of official power and the then Chief Minister, utterly “pleased”, with the “great findings” began chasing the officer and explanation was called for. The officer humbly replied that there were reports of shortage of indelible ink for being put on the fingers of voters. The State’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) was informed of this and was requested for necessary orders/arrangements. The CEO, in turn, found that at place ‘x’ the Collector had some extra stock of indelible ink. The CEO, by an official message, advised the concerned officer that the required quantum of ink could be picked up from the concerned Collector, but transport arrangements have to be made by the officer concerned. That is how the ink was carried from place ‘x’ to place ‘y’ in another vehicle by an authorised official as per official procedure and there was no element of illegality and impropriety or misuse of power or any element of corruption in the action.
The officer requested that the entire allegation based on erroneous and nonexistent facts should stand dropped. Nothing happened at the level of the State Government for months. Charges were drawn up. But the inquiring officer had no material to make out a “misconduct” or corrupt practice. It was attempted in vain to utilise the matter to harm the next promotion of the officer. A representation to the President (the appointing authority) was fortunately pending. Unexpectedly, the case was looked into with due application of mind. The Prime Minister/President reprimanded the State Government and called upon the State Government to recall all the allegations and close the issue hitherto pending. This battle, nay a war, was spread over five to seven years involving inevitable harassment and trauma to the maligned officer.
The object of this week’s concern is that we should not be carried away by making aspersions without adequate material to support them. Allegations may be easy to make but difficult to substantiate. The media laps it up and it is all over. It is hurled at you that you are “corrupt”, that you have abused public power and that you have caused immense loss to the public exchequer to enrich either yourself and/or your co-conspirators. All these appear with bold headlines. Though the allegation so publicised or over-publicised may be found to be untrue and baseless, a heavy price would have already been paid by the “innocent”. Our system fails. It is difficult to vindicate the position of the wrongly maligned. Accountability of the person indulging in malice has to be strictly enforced in an effective manner. Many unfounded allegations are blown out of proportion, but there is casual reporting of cases relating to the “honest” being “framed”. What has been lost is often irretrievable and can never be fully regained.
These are some of the vagaries of the games politicians play and the “innocent” do not have any tangible protection against misuse and abuse of power. The younger generation who constitutes the majority of the voting population of the country has not been involved with this problem and has demonstrated great flexibility and pliability. They must now stoutly and loudly tell the investigators and the media that their actions, at the behest of vested interest politicians, will not be tolerated and if they are found to have collaborated and indulged in such “planting” of malicious allegations, they shall not be spared. Compensatory measures should also be taken. This corrective message has to go from the youth power to the older generation for retrieving the situation forthwith. This sounds strange indeed but is the need of the hour. The investigator must be uninfluenced, unbiased and independent and not subject itself to any extraneous dictates. If there is a deviation, stringent punitive steps ought to be taken in a demonstrative manner. This would subserve a vital national interest. Alongside, the untold story of the wronged “honest” and “innocent” must receive greater publicity so that there is some amount of sanity in the society. The media ought to be under constant watch to ensure that there are no aberrations like harassment of the “honest” through the oft-repeated mode of “framing” of several types. This is fundamental to building a civil society on democratic norms. We now
have to ring the bell and ensure appropriate action. That is definitely a common cause of uncommon importance, and our common voice must be suitably audible. And, this certainly concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)