State ACB can probe charges against central government employees: HC

A Delhi High Court bench has ruled that where there is a complaint regarding suspicions of corruption against Central Government Employees who are employed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the state government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) can launch an investigation (MHA).

The bench was hearing the case of a Delhi police sub-inspector who had contested the trial court's decision to charge him with a crime under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act on the grounds that the Anti-Corruption Branch was not authorised to look into crimes involving central government employees and that any action it took would be illegal.

The High Court ruled that the Delhi police sub-claim inspector's that the ACB lacked authority to look into him as a result of a complaint filed to them could not be upheld.

"Any central government employee who is accused of corruption cannot escape punishment on the flimsy pretext that the Anti-Corruption Branch cannot look into them. It is the responsibility of the responsible authority to fully examine and review the claims when a complaint is made to that authority. They have the right to conduct an investigation at the time of filing the complaint, but they may transfer the matter to the relevant authorities for review after exercising due diligence "Observed the High Court in its ruling. The Anti-Corruption branch had received a written complaint alleging that a Delhi police officer had demanded Rs 20,000 in bribe money in exchange for providing his report about the issuance of an arms licence. The sub-inspector was then the target of charges laid in an FIR that was later filed.

The police officer contended that because he was cleared in departmental proceedings and the accusations in the disciplinary action and the FIR were identical, criminal charges against him could not be pursued.

The Delhi Government ACB does not have the authority or capability to act on a complaint against a member of the Delhi Police, according to a ruling cited by the High Court.

However, the bench provided the petitioner with relief by quashing the order of charge and all subsequent proceedings on the grounds that the petitioner had been vindicated in departmental proceedings and that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him.