JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioner, Dashrath Singh, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to pay arrears of pension and to comply with the order dated 5.1.2009 passed by respondent No. 2. 2. Facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under. 3. Petitioner retired from defence service on 31.5.1995 and his pension was determined at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month with effect from 1.6.1995. The pension payment order dated 13.12.1995 shows that pension with effect from 1.6.1995 was determined at enhanced rate of Rs. 425/- upto 31 May, 2000 whereafter it was payable at normal rate, i.e. Rs. 375/- per month. The gratuity was also determined at Rs. 27630/-. The aforesaid pension was paid to petitioner upto 30.6.1999. The system of payment of pension is that it is directly credited in petitioner’s Bank account by Pension Disbursing Authority, i.e. Union Bank of India, Mirzabad, Ghazipur. No pension was credited to petitioner’s account from 1.7.1999 and onwards. Despite petitioner’s several letters, none responded to his request. Hence, this writ petition. 4. This Court required the respondents to disclose reasons, why regular pension has not been paid to the petitioner and who is the person responsible for such extraordinary denial and delay and what action has been taken against such person. This order was passed on 9.11.2009 in the presence of respondents’ counsel Ms. Shiksha Dixit, Advocate, who had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. None responded even thereafter. In the circumstances, this Court passed an order on 14.12.2009 to the following effect. “Despite time having been granted on 9-11-2009, respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. The matter pertains to payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner which has not been paid for the last 14 years. In the circumstance I direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be present before this Court on 11th January, 2010 to appear personally and to show-cause why counter-affidavit has not been filed by them. However, if the respondents file counter-affidavit by 8th January, 2010 and pay cost of Rs. 5000/-, they need not to appear in person on 11-01-2010. Ms. Shikha Dixit, shall communicate this order to the respondents for compliance. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents within 48 hours.” 5. However, if the respondents file counter-affidavit by 8th January, 2010 and pay cost of Rs. 5000/-, they need not to appear in person on 11-01-2010. Ms. Shikha Dixit, shall communicate this order to the respondents for compliance. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents within 48 hours.” 5. A counter-affidavit was filed which accompanied four applications, one for condonation of delay in filing counter-affidavit, second for vacation of stay, third to take the counter-affidavit on record alongwith cost and fourth for dismissing the writ petition being devoid of merit. This Court fails to understand as to what was the occasion for filing delay condonation application and stay vacation application inasmuch the order dated 14.12.2009 itself permitted respondents to file counter-affidavit alongwith cost by 8.1.2010 and further there was no stay and hence no occasion for vacation of stay had arisen. These two applications are thoroughly misconceived. The third application prays that counter-affidavit be accepted alongwith cost though it was already permitted by Court’s order dated 14.12.2009. Hence, this application was also superfluous. Now so far as fourth application is concerned, once a counter-affidavit is filed, petitioner is entitled to file rejoinder affidavit and thereafter whether the writ petition has to be dismissed or allowed would be considered after hearing all the parties. All these applications, therefore, are wholly unwarranted and the Court express its serious disapproval of such practice of filing unsolicited and frivolous applications. Learned counsel for respondents could not assign any reason at any point of time. 6. Be that as it may, the case came up before this Court after 14.12.2009 on 29.4.2011, i.e. after more than 16 months. When the matter was taken up, the Court found that respondents had taken a stand that their Office has not issued any instruction to Pension Disbursing Authority, i.e. the Bank for stoppage of payment of pension. Further, it is said that when pension is not paid for sometime and the retired employee reappear for withdrawal of pension, para 111.3 read with para 111.1 of Defence Pension Payment Instructions require identification of the pensioner for resumption thereof and this procedure has to be observed by the petitioner. 7. This Court finds that para 111.3 applies to a case where petitioner himself neglects to draw his/her pension continuously for a period of three months and above. 7. This Court finds that para 111.3 applies to a case where petitioner himself neglects to draw his/her pension continuously for a period of three months and above. Here the question of petitioner’s neglect in receiving the pension did not arise since the pension had to be credited to his Bank account directly by the Pension Disbursing Authority. Hence the aforesaid provision ex facie did not apply to the case in hand. When sought clarification on this aspect and also the reason for non payment of pension to petitioner from July 1999, the Court fount that no reason was assigned in the entire counter-affidavit. 8. With respect to letter dated 5.1.2009, however, in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, respondents said that the letter relates to some other person since the Claim Diary Register No. mentioned therein pertains to one Sri Ram Tirath and not the petitioner. The counter-affidavit, however, admits the position that a fresh pension payment order is not required and petitioner is required to comply with the procedure as stated in para 7 of the counter-affidavit for resumption of pension and payment of arrears. He was required to submit his live certificate to Pension Disbursing Authority, i.e. Union Bank of India, Mirzabad, Ghazipur. The Court enquired from respondents’ counsel that the Pension Disbursing Authority appointed by respondents, if has failed to credit pension to petitioner’s account in a regular manner, why no efforts were made to enquire therefrom the reason therefor and to find the person guilty for denying pension to petitioner for such a long time. Counsel for the respondents referred to letter dated 21.12.2009 of Accounts Officer (Pension) filed as Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit which is addressed to Bank enquiring about the reason for non commencement of pension with effect from January 2008 and said that regarding arrears, the matter be referred to as per para 111.4. of the Defence Pension Payment Instructions (2005). 9. of the Defence Pension Payment Instructions (2005). 9. Since no straight answer was forthcoming from respondents as to why petitioner’s pension was not credited from July 1999 and onwards, this Court had to pass a detailed order on 29.4.2011, relevant part whereof reads as under: “Respondents have not assigned any reason for the period pension was not paid to petitioner after July 1999 though it is admitted that petitioner, who retired on 31.5.1995, was allowed pension from 1.6.1995 and was actually paid pension upto July 1999, but the reason for non payment of pension thereafter has not been stated anywhere in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for respondents is also not able to explain as to why the said payment was not made. On the contrary, respondents have said that since arrears of pension having not been paid to petitioner exceeded the period of 12 months or 36 months, as the case may be, therefore, petitioner has to seek further appropriate orders from the pension disbursement authority and pension sanctioning authority but reason for non payment of pension for the last nine years and more has not been stated anywhere. In the circumstances, I direct respondents 2 and 3 to appear before this Court on 11.5.2011 alongwith necessary record to show as to why pension was not paid to petitioner after July 1999 since this fact has neither been stated in the counter-affidavit nor learned counsel for respondents is able to show.”. 10. Following the said order, on 11.5.2011 Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared on behalf of respondents and Sri Ajay Mishra, Controller of Defence Accounts, Allahabad and Sri J.P. Srivastava, Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) also appeared. An affidavit was filed sworn by Sri Ajay Mishra C.D.A. (Pension) stating that it appears that pension was stopped by Bank since the petitioner had not drawn his pension for a long time due to any personal reason and after a long gap, without completion of required formalities, Bank could not pay arrear as well as the current pension amount. It further says that petitioner should have approached the Bank and submit his live certificate and other requisite papers for resumption of pension whereafter the Bank would have resumed the payment of pension after due verification and identification of the petitioner and thereafter the claim for arrears would have been sent for payment. It further says that petitioner should have approached the Bank and submit his live certificate and other requisite papers for resumption of pension whereafter the Bank would have resumed the payment of pension after due verification and identification of the petitioner and thereafter the claim for arrears would have been sent for payment. Simultaneously, in para 10 of the affidavit, it is said that petitioner has now been paid entire pension by depositing the same in his Bank account for the period 1.7.1999 to 31.12.2009 and in support thereof documents were filed as Annexure CA-2 and CA-3. Annexure CA-2 shows that it is a sanction order issued by the Office of Principal Controller of Defence Account, Allahabad and reason for delay in payment of pension has been mentioned as the mental illness. 11. The Court enquired from Sri Singhal appearing on behalf of respondents when the pension has to be credited directly in the Bank account what was the overt action on the part of petitioner to show that he neglected in collecting payment, he drew my attention to Form-A which is said to have been filled in by the petitioner but it shows that petitioner is illiterate and had put on his thumb impression over the column of signature. Obviously, someone in the Bank or in the Office of respondents had filled in the said form and therein himself has mentioned that petitioner could not collect pension due to his psychological disorder. It appears that the aforesaid form was obtained by Bank Manager and sent to C.D.A. Pension along Branch Manager’s letter dated 5.11.2010 referred to C.D.A. (Pension)’s letter dated 7.7.2010. 12. He also drew my attention to an affidavit placed alongwith affidavit of Ajay Mishra at page 29 said to have been submitted by the petitioner giving reasons that due to his mental and physical illness, he could not come to bank and therefore could not draw pension. The aforesaid affidavit is stated to have been sworn by petitioner on 4.5.2011. It appears that after the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by this Court, the respondents pressurized the petitioner to submit the aforesaid documents in haste. Petitioner, an illiterate poor person, obviously must being in serious financial constraint and in the hope of getting pension at the earliest must have put on his thumb impression as suggested by the respondents. It appears that after the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by this Court, the respondents pressurized the petitioner to submit the aforesaid documents in haste. Petitioner, an illiterate poor person, obviously must being in serious financial constraint and in the hope of getting pension at the earliest must have put on his thumb impression as suggested by the respondents. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner, he has not talked of any such reason about his illness etc. nor any such fact has been stated in the entire writ petition at all. It thus clearly establishes that pension was arbitrarily stopped from July 1999 without there being any reason. 13. Sri Singhal stated that petitioner has also sent an acknowledgement that he has received pension and, therefore, requested that matter be dismissed as infructuous. 14. Normally in case once an amount which remained unpaid is received by the petitioner, this Court used to pass an order consigning the record. But, here is a case where an illiterate retired person has been victimized by not crediting pension in his Bank account which used to be an automatic process. Nobody has come forward to explain as to who and why committed such default and on the contrary, respondents are trying to suggest that the petitioner neglected in receiving pension though question of such negligence does not arise since the pension had to be credited to petitioner’s Bank account without any involvement of petitioner. Despite repeated query, learned Add. Solicitor General could not explain this aspect of the matter. This Court, therefore, is satisfied that default in stopping pension to the petitioner from July 1999 for more than a decade is not only wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal but the petitioner has also been denied fundamental right of life and liberty, i.e. a decent life by the respondents by not paying even a single penny to the petitioner, though it was his legal and fundamental right. Mere payment of pension including arrears after more than a decade when stern orders were passed by this Court pointing out serious apathy, inaction and negligence on the part of respondents, would not justify closure of the matter on mere such payment. 15. Petitioner, a retired employee was a minuscule in the system to put it in motion on his own. 15. Petitioner, a retired employee was a minuscule in the system to put it in motion on his own. The only thing he could have done was to run from one office to another which he did. He left no stone unturned. He knocked the doors of respondents and, thereafter, of this Court. The authorities who were really responsible for such payments remained static and inactive as if they have no responsibility, liability and accountability in the matter. The situation of petitioner in such circumstances having a psyche of helplessness is quite understandable. 16. In normal course, this Court would have closed the chapter once payment is made and as requested by learned Assistant Solicitor General, would have passed appropriate order consigning the matter but considering torture and harassment met by petitioner in the last so many years in the hands of respondents authorities, who did not bother to look into his grievance with a humane approach, the request of learned Assistant Solicitor General, if accepted, would put a seal of approval over extraordinary laxity and negligence shown by respondents. This would be against the equity and justice. 17. Moreover, lapses, negligence and inaction on the part of respondents is wholly non understandable. This extraordinary delay and laches in payment of pension and other dues to petitioner cannot be ignored. Petitioner, admittedly, has been made to suffer not only himself but the family also, that too at an old age. Now the payment of pension technically may amount to satisfy some belated requirement of petitioner but it is not the complete justice which is the constitutional obligation of this Court. 18. In view of this Court, mere payment, that too so belated, if allowed to stay without anything further, this would be nothing but a bit short of true and complete justice. It would not compensate the petitioner for the harassment and helplessness he has faced althrough though his fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed with impunity all along. This Court has no hesitation in observing that total inaction, apathy and negligence on the part of respondents has no valid and lawful justification at all. In fact it is wholly arbitrary. 19. This Court has no hesitation in observing that total inaction, apathy and negligence on the part of respondents has no valid and lawful justification at all. In fact it is wholly arbitrary. 19. I am also satisfied that this act was not only illegal and arbitrary but travels in the realm of malice in law, therefore, it deserves to be dealt with severely so that no Government officer in future may have the audacity of harassing a helpless poor employee, firstly, by torturing him/her by detaining his/her lawful dues and thereafter to escape from any liability so as to boast that nobody can touch him even if he/she commits an ex facie illegal or unjust act. Every Government officer, howsoever high, must always keep in mind that nobody is above law. The hands of justice are meant not to only catch out such person but it is also the constitutional duty of a Court of law to pass suitable order in such matters so that such illegal acts may not be repeated, not only by him/her but by others also. This should be a lesson to everyone committing an act which is ex facie unjust and having not been done for a just or lawful reason. Prima facie it must be treated to have been done for collateral purposes and covered by the term ‘’malice in law’. 20. The Apex Court has summarised “malice in law “ in (Smt.) S.R.Venkatraman v. Union of India and another, AIR 1979 SC 49 , as under : “It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another.” (Para 8) 21. The Apex Court further in para 9 of the judgment in S.R.Venkatraman (supra) observed: “ 9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. The Apex Court further in para 9 of the judgment in S.R.Venkatraman (supra) observed: “ 9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of Government servants only in the ‘’public interest’, to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must, therefore, be held to be infected with an abuse of power.” 22. In Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2009 (13) SC 643, the Apex Court said : “We also intend to emphasize that the distinction between a malice of fact and malice in law must be borne out from records; whereas in a case involving malice in law which if established may lead to an inference that the statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction while exercising its jurisdiction, malice of fact must be pleaded and proved.” 23. In Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, 2009 (2) SCC 592 , dealing with the question of validity of an order of transfer on the ground of malice in law, the Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment observed as under: “16. .... Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 24. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 24. In HMT Ltd. and another v. Mudappa and others, JT 2007(3) SC 112, the Apex Court in paras 18 and 19 defined malice in law by referring to “Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edn., London Butterworths, 1989” as under: “The legal meaning of malice is “ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action”. This is sometimes described as “malice in fact”. “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means ‘’something done without lawful excuse’. In other words, ‘’it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite’. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others.” “19. It was observed that where malice was attributed to the State, it could not be a case of malice in fact, or personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It could only be malice in law, i.e legal mala fide.” 25. In brief malice in law is attracted when power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose or on a fact which is claimed to exist but in fact non-est or for the purpose for which it is not meant though apparently it is shown that the same is being exercised for the purpose the power is supposed to be exercised. (See Manager Govt. Branch Press and another v. D.B.Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 ; Punjab Electricity Board v. Zora Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 182; K.K.Bhalla v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2006 SC 898 ; P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 9 SCC 497 ; M.P.State Corporation Diary Federation Ltd. and another v. Rajneesh Kumar Zamindar and others, (2009) 6 SCALE 17; Swarn Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 7 SCALE 622 and Sri Yemeni Raja Ram Chandar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT (2009) 12 SC 198. 26. A peculiar feature of this case is that respondents have tried to shift the entire blame upon the Union Bank which was authorized to credit pension on regular basis in the account of petitioner. 26. A peculiar feature of this case is that respondents have tried to shift the entire blame upon the Union Bank which was authorized to credit pension on regular basis in the account of petitioner. In order to appreciate this aspect, the Court enquired from learned counsel for respondents the procedure in which arrangement for payment of pension has been made authorizing a particular Bank. The Court was informed that amongst a number of Banks selected by Government, the employee has to select a particular Bank, in which he must have an account so that the pension on monthly basis may be credited directly to his account. The Government authorizes the Bank to credit a particular amount determined as pension every month to the accounts of retired employees who have opted for such Bank. Petitioner is not employee of the Bank, therefore, liability of payment of pension does not rest with the Bank. It is a part of system evolved by respondents in furtherance of making payment of pension smooth and regular and that too without any undue bureaucratic hurdle. The Bank, in effect acts like an agent of the Government. The employee has no control over it so far as crediting of pensionary amount to the employee’s account is concerned. The respondents though tried to blame the Bank but have not placed anything on record to show as to why the payment was stopped and at whose instance. On this aspect, there is a complete silence on their part. Respondents, therefore, did not react to the situation though were supposed to do so when a retired employee has complained about his harassment due to non payment of pension and the Bank being beyond petitioner’s control, petitioner virtually left total helpless. It is in these circumstances, he exercised his right of judicial review and that is why the Court is seized of the matter. Respondents, therefore, have not acted in a responsible and accountable manner. The silence on the part of respondents or the attitude of shifting responsibility without identifying the real cause cannot be ignored. It cannot be without any basis. When shallow defence is put forward, it means officials are trying to cover up their extra interest in the matter instead of finding out the guilty person and taking appropriate action against him. The silence on the part of respondents or the attitude of shifting responsibility without identifying the real cause cannot be ignored. It cannot be without any basis. When shallow defence is put forward, it means officials are trying to cover up their extra interest in the matter instead of finding out the guilty person and taking appropriate action against him. This unmindful and arbitrary activity in the present days scenario mostly is influenced by corrupt activities as it is a facet of corruption. It is very difficult and, in fact, almost impossible to ensure a suo motu lawful and valid action from the authorities unless they are put in motion by greasing and oiling, i.e. by approaching and pleasing them in different ways. 27. The cases of corruption, to get it proved, by having a direct evidence of give and take is almost impossible except where some of the officials are trapped. But this is also possible only when the party who is asked to adopt such means is agreeable and willing to take the help of the machinery meant for prevention of such activities. Otherwise, these are private affairs, involving one and one, where both agrees. Hence is almost impossible to find out direct evidence. It is for this reason that judicial cognizance, this Court can take of the fact that despite of wide spread corruption throughout the country, we find handful of cases where public servants have actually been punished for such kind of charges. It is true that every day, in news and otherwise, we read several such cases where law enforcing machinery, responsible for prevention of corruption, have detected, and raided the premises etc. of public servants, recovered lot of wealth, but in actual execution of prosecution etc., we find almost negligible cases where the public servants have actually been prosecuted and punished. Sometimes on account of extraordinary delay, sometimes due to deliberate slow pace of the proceedings of investigation or prosecution or otherwise and sometimes for other reasons, we ultimately find, that, things have resulted in discharge of public servants without any meaningful and effective preventive measures/punishment. 28. In the last 60 years of independence, if there is one field we can boast of a national allround development and that too multifold, it is the field of corruption. It has various shades. 28. In the last 60 years of independence, if there is one field we can boast of a national allround development and that too multifold, it is the field of corruption. It has various shades. It is not confined to only one field of bribery, cash and kind, but has different colours and nuances. 29. There are some statutes in the name of checking/preventing this menace, but that is virtually toothless, a paper tiger. These statutes have not proved at all, in actual sense, a deterring measure, for the civil servants engaged in such activities. In fact these activities are beyond any limits and bounds and have crept in all the wings of State, whether executive, legislature or even judiciary. 30. The Courts have noticed the wide spread corruption and has made its observations time and again. 31. In High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, 1997(6) SCC 339 : “Corruption, appears to have spread everywhere. No facet of public function has been left unaffected by the putrefied stink of ‘corruption’. ‘Corruption’ thy name is depraved and degraded conduct...... In the widest connotation, ‘corruption’ includes improper or selfish exercise of power and influence attached to a public office.” 32. In B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., 2001(7) SCC 231 : “. . . . scope of ‘corruption’ in the governing structure has heightened opportunism and unscrupulousness among political parties, causing them to marry and divorce one another at will, seek opportunistic alliances and coalitions often without the popular mandate.” 33. In State of A.P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao, 2004 (9) SCC 319 : “. . . The word ‘corruption’ has wide connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our day-to-day life the world over. In a limited sense it connotes allowing decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.” 34. In general the well accepted meaning of corruption is the act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle; the state of being corrupted or debased; lost of purity or integrity; depravity; wickedness; impurity; bribery. It further says, “the act of changing or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain.” 35. It further says, “the act of changing or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain.” 35. Though in a civilised society, corruption has always been viewed with particular distaste to be condemned and criticised by everybody but still one loves to engage himself in it if finds opportunity, ordinarily, since it is difficult to resist temptation. It is often, a kind, parallel to the word ‘bribery’, meaning whereof in the context of the politicians or bureaucrats, induced to become corrupt. The Greek Philosopher Plato, in 4th Century BC said, “in the Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. This is recognised also in the aphorism that those who want to hold power are most likely those least fit to do so.” While giving speech before the House of Lords William Pitt in the later half of 18th Century said, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Lord Acton in his letter addressed to Bishop Creighton is now one of the famous quotation, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 36. Corruption is a term known to all of us. Precise meaning is illegal, immoral or unauthorized act done in due course of employment but literally it means “inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by committing a felony).” It is an specially pernicious form of discrimination. Apparently its purpose is to seek favourable, privileged treatment from those who are in authority. No one would indulge in corruption at all if those who are in authority, discharge their service by treating all equally. 37. We can look into it from another angle. Corruption also violates human rights. It discriminates against the poor by denying them access to public services and preventing from exercising their political rights on account of their incapability of indulging in corruption, of course on account of poverty and other similar related factors. Corruption is, therefore, divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. It undermines respect for authority and increases cynicism. It discourages participation of individuals in civilised society and elevates self interest as a guide to conduct. Corruption is, therefore, divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. It undermines respect for authority and increases cynicism. It discourages participation of individuals in civilised society and elevates self interest as a guide to conduct. In social terms we can say that corruption develops a range bound field of behaviour, attitude and beliefs. Corruption is antithesis of good governance and democratic politics. It is said, that when corruption is pervasive, it permeates every aspect of people’s lives. It can affect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. If we go further, we can give some terminology also to different shades of corruption like, financial corruption, cultural corruption, moral corruption, idealogical corruption etc. The fact remains that from whatever angle we look into it, the ultimate result borne out is that, and the real impact of corruption is, the poor suffers most, the poverty groves darker, and rich become richer. 38. Delayed payment of pension and retiral benefits, salary etc., may be a small matter from the point of view of highly paid Officers in a department or Government as such, but its real impact upon the entire family of the employee concerned cannot be overlooked. In those days, how the family would be surviving is easily understandable. It can only be realized and difficult to express in words. An unreasoned and unjust denial of such payment which infringed the fundamental right of the person concerned enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be viewed lightly. Nothing move without any reason and that is how the element of corruption is increasing. Even if from the point of view of the respondents non payment of pension for sometime could be a small matter, but this Court has no hesitation in putting on record that omission of small level of corruption ultimately grow cancerously. This country has now reached a stage where we find level of corruption running in several thousand of crores and going to even lacs of crores. Everyone wherever is possible, indulging in such activities depending on one’s capacity, capability and opportunity. This Court do not mean to say that all are corrupt. Fortunately that is not so. This country has now reached a stage where we find level of corruption running in several thousand of crores and going to even lacs of crores. Everyone wherever is possible, indulging in such activities depending on one’s capacity, capability and opportunity. This Court do not mean to say that all are corrupt. Fortunately that is not so. Still we have sufficiently large number of people who do not indulge in such activities and bold enough to discard any attempt, if made by someone, but those who want to take advantage of such widespread corruption, have now become so fearless that they can dare to approach and go to any extent to lure those who are in authority, to seek favour in one or the other manner. In their belief, everyone has some price, degree may defer. Fortunately, this country still have sufficiently large number of people who are beyond such vice. Probably it is for this reason we are still marching ahead and developing with galloping pace but now time has come when stern steps have to be taken with determination and cementised will to nip out corruption at every level, lest it may be too late. 39. I do not intend to indulge in further discussion on this aspect since it needs be debated, at different forum, so as to enlighten the people, and to pursue them to stand against and to arm them so as to route it out. This Court is well aware that in this process, the prime responsibility lie on the executive. But in particular it is now of paramount importance that the judiciary must also take this task upon itself. The cases involving corruption must be dealt with extraordinary pace. It must ensure that those indulged in corruption are prosecuted and punished at the earliest and within a reasonable time. The judiciary should not show any leniency on corruption and corrupt people whether small or larger, one. A message must go that corruption at all cost shall result in severe and deterrent punishment. The booty, loot or benefit one has earned by indulging in corruption, must be forfeited so that it may become a part of public revenue, and may be utilised for public benefit, instead of allowing it to remain with the corrupt beneficiary, otherwise, the effectiveness of deterrence shall stand lessened. The booty, loot or benefit one has earned by indulging in corruption, must be forfeited so that it may become a part of public revenue, and may be utilised for public benefit, instead of allowing it to remain with the corrupt beneficiary, otherwise, the effectiveness of deterrence shall stand lessened. The law enforcement machinery, i.e., investigators must probe such matters independently, without any interference and should ensure completion of investigation within record time. Everyone who abate, who allow to perpetuate by inaction, encourage it and similarly all other persons connected in one or other way be dealt with in the same manner as if the corrupt person and should be punished severely but with a pace so that the others may learn lesson and continue in their memory. It be not allowed to be eroded with passage of time. All this require determination and will, at different level and needs to be looked into with real sincerity since time has ripened now. 40. In the case in hand, denial of pension is almost for a decade. This is apparently a serious infringement of fundamental right of life and liberty of petitioner since now it is well established that right to life includes right to earn livelihood and live a decent life. This Constitutional right of petitioner has been violated with glaring impunity. 41. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted “for the people, by the people and of the people”. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee. 42. The respondents being the State Government, i.e., “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. As observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery, therefore, is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries. 43. Regarding harassment of a Government employee, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. 43. Regarding harassment of a Government employee, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and others, 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, held as under: “An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.” (para 10) 44. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 45. In the case of Registered Society v. Union of India and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 , the Apex Court said as under: “No public servant can say “you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 46. In the case of Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 , the Apex Court has held as follows: “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.” 47. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and Another, AIR 1996 SC 715 , has held as follows: “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 48. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 48. Considering the matter in a comprehensive manner, the justice and equity requires this writ petition to be disposed of with the direction that respondents shall pay interest at the rate of eight per cent p.a. to the petitioner on the entire amount of arrears of pension paid to the petitioner from the date of default till the actual payment. 49. Though initially this Court was inclined to impose exemplary cost upon the respondents, but considering the fairness and apology tendered on the part of the respondents through learned Asstt. S.G. and all other facts and circumstances, I refrain myself. The cost is made easy. 50. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 51. I order accordingly. ——————