Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 847 (AP)

Gorrela Durga Rao v. Government of A. P.

2013-10-01

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2013
Judgment : The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) became a necessity and the need of the hour to take up the cause of those sections of the society who cannot knock the doors of the Court due to their poverty and ignorance. Some persons who felt it as a social obligation to take up the cause of suffering people took initiative and brought the grievances of the poor and the suffering people to the notice of the superior Court by way of PIL and the Courts have also entertained those PILs to mitigate the injustice done to those sections of the people. May be in case of bonded labour or under-trial prisoners or children or street dwellers, the Courts recognized them as citizens of this Country and tried to protect their fundamental and other civil rights. Of course, it is also a fact that few persons, with a view to wreck vengeance, resorted to file PIL and some others for the purpose of publicity in media and in some cases, unscrupulous litigants tried to use this facility to blackmail some persons for selfish gains. But however, where it appears that the issue involved pertains to the rights of the weaker sections of the society, women, children or where the interest of the society at large is involved or where the issues like national economy, exploitation of natural resources, protection of environment are involved or specific corruption charges against the higher officials or politicians etc., have been made, irrespective of the fact as to the person who approached the Courts, for the purpose of upholding the truth and the rule of law and ultimately in the interest of the society and the nation, the Courts should and must interfere. Ultimately justice has to be done. JUSTICE – as enshrined in our Constitution; JUSTICE – according to well established principles and keeping in view the objects of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Acts and also the aspirations of the people of this Country. We have to keep in mind the noble customs and traditions of the great judicial institutions. Ultimately justice has to be done. JUSTICE – as enshrined in our Constitution; JUSTICE – according to well established principles and keeping in view the objects of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Acts and also the aspirations of the people of this Country. We have to keep in mind the noble customs and traditions of the great judicial institutions. Of course, where it appears that the person approaching the Court by filing the PIL is an unscrupulous litigant and who had not approached the Court with clean hands or filed PIL only to satisfy his personal vendetta and where the interest of the society and the nation or the protection of the fundamental rights of any citizens or specific corruption charges are not involved, the Courts must refuse to entertain the PIL. Coming to the facts of this case, the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Reserve Police Constable in Krishna District on 14.06.1970, and after completion of basic training, he was transferred to C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad on deputation on 10.01.1974. Later he was repatriated to Krishna District on 06.11.197. Afterwards, he was transferred to Intelligence Wing, Hyderabad on deputation on 31.05.1977. In the mean time, he was transferred to civil police and underwent training at P.R.S. Vizianagaram. Then, he was repatriated to C.B.C.I.D., Hyderabad and relieved in Intelligence Wing on 05.06.1984. Subsequently, he was promoted as temporarily officiating Head Constable with effect from 15.06.1984 and transferred to Anti Corruption Bureau from C.B.C.I.D. on deputation on 09.01.1985. Then he was repatriated to Krishna District from Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad on 12.11.1987. Later he was brought on to list of approved probationers with effect from 22.04.1988 and was transferred to A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad on deputation on 12.04.1989. Later on, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on temporary basis with effect from 16.03.1990, and then repatriated to Krishna District from A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad on 01.09.1994. Then, he was transferred to Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on deputation on 15.09.1994. Again he was deputed to A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad, on 20.06.1998. He was then repatriated to Krishna District on 08.06.2000. Again he was deputed on to Vigilance and Enforcement, MCH, Hyderabad on deputation for a period of three years and he joined there on 15.06.2002. On 07.03.2005, he was repatriated to Krishna District from the Vigilance and Enforcement Cell, MCH, Hyderabad. Again he was deputed to A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad, on 20.06.1998. He was then repatriated to Krishna District on 08.06.2000. Again he was deputed on to Vigilance and Enforcement, MCH, Hyderabad on deputation for a period of three years and he joined there on 15.06.2002. On 07.03.2005, he was repatriated to Krishna District from the Vigilance and Enforcement Cell, MCH, Hyderabad. One of the allegations made against the petitioner is that he refused to receive the relieving orders when he was relieved from Vigilance and Enforcement Department, MCH, Hyderabad. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not relieved from the Vigilance and Enforcement Cell of the third respondent by the fifth respondent. The petitioner claims that he had been fighting against corruption and he got number of awards and rewards from his higher ups for the same. It is also his case that though he brought corruption practices to the notice of the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent, in collision with the corrupt staff, did not take any action, as he had a share in the illegally collected amounts. His specific case is that on 05.03.2005, on credible information that there was pilferage of diesel from MCH vehicles at Chief Transport Officer, MCH, Malakpet, he made a surprise inspection on the vehicle bearing No.FR 23262, in Circle No. III and VI belonging to 3rd respondent in which certain staff belonging to Vigilance and Enforcement of 3rd respondent was found in possession of excess amount, than what was recorded in the Registers maintained by the V&E of 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the V&E staff of 3rd respondent was supposed to see that the provisions of HMC Act are complied with and if any contravention of the said Act and Rules take place, the erring member is liable to be fined. According to the petitioner, the V&E staff of 3rd respondent was supposed to see that the provisions of HMC Act are complied with and if any contravention of the said Act and Rules take place, the erring member is liable to be fined. It is also the case of the petitioner that if any member of public or individual places any article or deposits debris on the streets or open drain or public place which causes inconvenience and obstruction to the public safety is liable to be fined under the provisions of HMC Act, 1955 and the staff of V&E of 3rd respondent is authorized to detect such offences and in the course of their duties, these officers appeared to have collected the amounts on 05.03.2005 from the members of the public without issuing Challans/receipts and thereby indulged themselves in corrupt activities and the same was caught red-handed by the petitioner with the help of media (ETV-2) and the same was telecasted in ETV-2 under the caption ‘Andhravani’. At that time, the fifth respondent was working as Additional Superintendent of Police in the office of the 3rd respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that though a system was introduced in V&E, MCH, from the year 2004 that all Sanitary Jawans and Home Guards who are being deployed on enforcement duty should declare the amount they are carrying and enter in the register, but in practice, they were making sham entries in the register at the end of the day after their return from duties. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the date of surprise check conducted by him, Sanitary Jawan Sri Mallaiah was carrying an undeclared amount of Rs.1,160/- which was admitted by Sri Mallaiah before the media. On the date of surprise check by the petitioner, no officer above the rank of petitioner was available in the office and thus as a precautionary measure to collect visual evidence, the petitioner took the help of the media (ETV-2). On the other hand, the case of the third respondent is that the employees of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad working in Vigilance & Enforcement Cell have submitted a joint representation dated 07.03.2005 to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, complaining about the harassment of the petitioner and his corrupt activities. On the other hand, the case of the third respondent is that the employees of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad working in Vigilance & Enforcement Cell have submitted a joint representation dated 07.03.2005 to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, complaining about the harassment of the petitioner and his corrupt activities. The Home Guards working on deputation with Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad have also complained that the petitioner was indulging in threatening and demanding bribe and in some instances, he is resorting to surprise check on the Home guards personnel and making out false cases against them stating that they are possessing excess amount than the amounts collected through Challans and they requested for an enquiry into the matter and do justice to them. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in not investigating into the complaints/Petitions, dated 27-06-2005, 09/09/2005, 20/09/2005 and 30/09/2005 and a complaint made in January 2006, against the 5th respondent herein, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to register a Criminal Case against 5th and 6th respondent and order an independent investigation to be conducted by appropriate and competent police authority, who is not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and further direct the respondent 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against respondents 5 and 6 so as to punish them in accordance with law. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent are as follows:- The fifth respondent was working as Additional Superintendent of Police in the office of the third respondent, i.e., GHMC during the relevant period; that the fifth petitioner has been suspended three times on corruption charges; that at the time of retirement, he owned 35 acres of agriculture land at Podechempally, Via Yellapur, (near Manjeera Dam) which he has purchased in the year 1994, where, he is growing sugar-cane with lift water irrigation; that he constructed a big building at his native place, demolishing his mud house; that he owns 15 acres of land at Shadnagar and Medchal; that he owns a house at Vikrampuri, Karkhana, Secunderabad, regarding which he had a case in the Court of Law against one Pandu, Advocate; that he purchased a two-storied building worth Rs.1.5 crores, backside of Begumpet Police Lines backside, Hyderabad; that he owns two houses, two plots and six shops at Bowenpally near Sarojini Pulla Reddy’s house; that he owns 400 square yards of plot at Uppal (opposite to Bus Depot) in which he raised two shops; that he is running a private bank named Eenadu Bank with partnership at BHEL, Chandanagar, Hyderabad; that he got a construction business in the name of his brother-in-law; that he owns plots in and around Shadnagar new Airport area; that he has got three daughters and one son and he had performed marriage of his daughters luxuriously and it is known to one and all of Police Department and that he is educating his son by paying huge amount of donation to the Engineering college in the city; that he owns two cars; that he has property valuing above Rs.10 crores including, gold, silver and cash; and that it is not known how the fifth respondent has accumulated this much property when he hails from a poor labourer’s family. The second allegation against the fifth respondent is that his original date of birth is 01.06.1945, but he has tampered with his date of birth and made it as 01.06.1948 and got promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police and thereby, cheated the police department as well as the state Government and when the information about the manipulation of his date of birth is published in Telugu daily newspaper, he applied for voluntary retirement and the Government allowed him to retire from service. The third allegation against the fifth respondent is that he got an ambassador car allotted to him and he had set it on fire deliberately to claim conveyance of Rs.14,000/-per month. The sum and substance of the counters filed by the respondents is that the deputation of the petitioner was cancelled and he was relieved from the Vigilance and Enforcement wing of the third respondent, but he refused to receive the relieving orders. Then the fifth respondent tried to serve the said proceedings to the petitioner on 09.03.2005. when the petitioner declined to receive the said proceedings, the fifth respondent put up a U.O. Note to the third respondent. The third respondent also issued proceedings dated 15.03.2005 directing the petitioner to report before the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District. Then the fifth respondent, who was then working as Additional Superintendent of Police, V&E Cell, MCH, made a U.O. Note dated 16.03.2005 expressing his opinion that petitioner has exhibited high handedness and reprehensible character by not receiving the relieving orders. Then the fifth respondent, in his capacity as Additional Superintendent of Police, V&E Cell, MCH, also opined that a letter may be addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District for taking necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thereupon, the third respondent addressed a letter dated 02.04.2005 to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, enclosing the U.O. Note of the fifth respondent for taking necessary action. The further case of the fifth respondent is that this writ petition is not maintainable as it is not filed as probono publico and the allegations disclose that the writ petition is instituted as an adversarial litigation and that the petitioner ought to have approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal since service conditions are involved. The further case of the respondents is that the Municipal employees lodged a complaint against the petitioner that he used to harass them demanding bribe. The further case of the respondents is that the Municipal employees lodged a complaint against the petitioner that he used to harass them demanding bribe. It is also their further case that a departmental enquiry is ordered against the petitioner and that he was found guilty. It appears that the Government passed orders withholding the entire pension of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has paid heavy prize for fighting against corruption. It is also their case that as far as manipulating of date of birth of the fifth respondent is concerned, a discreet enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad and the investigation revealed that the correct date of birth of the fifth respondent is 01.06.1948 as claimed by him and the same has been supported by the Lr.No.144/2006, dated 27.01.2006 of Gazetted Headmaster, Government Boys High School, Medak and the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Multipurpose High School, Medak vide T.C.No.1287, Register No.318/5330. According to the fifth respondent, the enquiry was ordered with regard to the allegation that he had set the ambassador car allotted to him on fire to claim the conveyance of Rs.14,000/- and it is found that there is no enough material to substantiate the said allegation. As far as the allegation of the fifth petitioner possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income is concerned, his case is that K.Ravinder Reddy, retired Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad had verified the assets and found that the fifth respondent is having the following properties. S.No. Description of location of property Name of the property holder Regd. Doc. No. Safe consideration as per Regd. Document in Rupees) 1. Plot No.320 in Survey No. 336 admeasuring 125 sq. yards at Kukatpally Village, Ranga Reddy District Sri G. Anjaiah Doc. No.4921/88 of SRO, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District 1,438/- 2. House Plot No.830 admeasuring 300 square yards at Thokatta of Bowenpally, Hyderabad District -- do -- Doc. No.47/1966 of SRO Bowenpally, Hyderabad District 3,00,000/- 3. Document in Rupees) 1. Plot No.320 in Survey No. 336 admeasuring 125 sq. yards at Kukatpally Village, Ranga Reddy District Sri G. Anjaiah Doc. No.4921/88 of SRO, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District 1,438/- 2. House Plot No.830 admeasuring 300 square yards at Thokatta of Bowenpally, Hyderabad District -- do -- Doc. No.47/1966 of SRO Bowenpally, Hyderabad District 3,00,000/- 3. Land of 24 guntas in survey No.4 at Nallagundla Village, Ranga Reddy District Smt. G. Kamala, W/o. Sri G. Anjaiah Document No.7922/99 of SRO, Ranga Reddy 2,17,000/- Total Rs.5,19,238/- Thus, the case of the fifth respondent is that the allegations made by the petitioner were enquired into by the retired Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad, by conducting discreet enquiry in a fair manner and the said Inspector opined that the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect. It is also the case of the fifth respondent that the subsequent petitions sent by the petitioner dated 12.01.2006 was also got enquired by the ACB vide Lr.C.No.45/SC-A/2006, dated -01.02.2006 and the Government dropped further action against the fifth respondent. Heard both the learned counsel. Written submissions have been filed by the petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 5 separately. The fifth respondent had also relied Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( AIR 2005 SC 540 ), Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others ( AIR 1990 SC 2060 ), Neetu Vs. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 2007 SC 758 )and Dr. DuryodhanSahu Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others ( AIR 1999 SC 114 ). The sum and substance of the above referred decisions appears to be that there must be real and public interest involved and not for personal gain or to satisfy personal grudge. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness of the nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite; (d) the information should show the gravity and seriousness involved. It is also settled law that the Courts have to strike balance between two conflicting interests and has to maintain social balance while interfering where there is bare necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public goal and merely to satisfy personal enmity. It is also settled law that the Courts have to strike balance between two conflicting interests and has to maintain social balance while interfering where there is bare necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public goal and merely to satisfy personal enmity. A reading of the entire material on record go to show that the petitioner was appointed as Reserve Police Constable in the year 1970 and subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and till he conducted surprise check on 05.03.2005, no allegations have been made against him. For the first time, certain staff made allegations against the petitioner that he was demanding bribe and conducting surprise checks and making allegations against certain staff that they were in possession of excess amount. It is not the case of the respondents that any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner at any point of time during his service till 07.03.2005. The material on record shows that the till the petitioner made a surprise check on the vehicles of the third respondent with the help of the media (ETV-2) on 05.03.2005, no allegation was made against him. Admittedly, the whole trouble seems to have started when it is claimed by the petitioner that the staff of the third respondent was found in possession of excess amount and according to the petitioner, this is the root-cause for the fifth respondent threatening him and subsequently taking steps to repatriate him to his parent department. Admittedly, the repatriation proceedings were issued on 07.03.2005, i.e., within two days from the date of the petitioner making a surprise check on the vehicles of the third respondent. It may be a fact that the fifth respondent tried to serve the relieving orders on the petitioner and he expressed his view that the petitioner exhibited high-handedness and reprehensive character by not receiving the relieving orders. It has to be seen that the petitioner had been working under the fifth respondent since much prior to 05.03.2005, but even the fifth respondent had not made any allegations against the petitioner prior to 05.03.2005. Merely because the fifth respondent tried to serve the relieving orders on the petitioner or had sent a report against the petitioner that cannot be taken as a sole ground to throw away the writ petition. Merely because the fifth respondent tried to serve the relieving orders on the petitioner or had sent a report against the petitioner that cannot be taken as a sole ground to throw away the writ petition. It ha to be seen that the only reason for relieving the petitioner from the V&E department of the third respondent appears to be the surprise check conducted by the petitioner on 05.03.2005 and the subsequent events have to be looked from that angle. Even if there is some enmity between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to ignore the specific allegations of corruption. Now-a-days, nobody would come forward to lodge complaints even if they come to know the rampant corruption. The society is rather scared seeing the fate of those who raise voice against corruption. It may not be relevant to note that even IAS and IPS officers are being killed or harmed when they started fighting against corruption. There is no need for the petitioner to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal since no service conditions have to be determined in this writ petition. The contentions of the respondent and the main prayer in the writ petition and the specific allegations made in the writ and the contents of the complaint petitions sent by the petitioner have to be looked into. I have thoroughly gone through the rival contentions of both the parties. One of the main contention of the respondents is that as far as alleged possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by the fifth respondent are concerned, they were got enquired by one K. Ravinder Reddy – a retired Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad. One of the prime contentions of the petitioner is that the said Inspector of Police had not recorded his statement at any time. It is not in dispute that K. Ravinder Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad had not enquired with the petitioner. When the allegations have been made by the petitioner and when he is the main source who could have thrown some light with regard to the allegations against the fifth respondent, the retired Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad, in all fairness, ought to have enquired with the petitioner and in all probabilities, the petitioner would have assisted him in ascertaining the truth. It is not necessary that an Investigating Officer should accept the version of the complainant or any witness. He should come to a conclusion basing upon the material collected and draw logical conclusions and try to find out the truth. All efforts have to be made to find out the truth. The allegations may be true or utterly false, but there should be material for the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, said Ravinder Reddy, retired Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad, did not even met the petitioner and enquired with him. Thus, it appears that the enquiry conducted by the said Inspector of Police appears to be a one-sided enquiry and it cannot be said to be a full-fledged enquiry. Unfortunately, the enquiry reports submitted by the Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad, with regard to the allegations made against the fifth respondent are not made available to this Court. The Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad seems to have not enquired into with regard to all the properties that are allegedly acquired by the fifth respondent. Properties being possessed by the fifth respondent as alleged by the petitioner Properties of the fifth respondent which are said to be enquired by the Inspector of Police, ACB, City Range – II, Hyderabad He owns 30 acres of land at his native place, i.e., in Medak District He purchased plot No.320 in Survey No.336 admeasuring 125 Sq. Yards at Kukatpally Village, vide document No.4921 of 1988. He owns 35 Acres of Agricultural land at Podechampally via Yellapur, near Manjeera Dam, purchased in the year 1994 He purchased 24 guntas of land in Survey No.4 of Nallagandla Village, R.R. District, vide document No.7922 of 1999. He constructed a building at his native place demolishing his mud house R-5 purchased Plot No.830 admeasuring 300 Sq. Yards at Tokatta of Boyenpalli, vide Document No.47 of 1996, dated 17.01.1996. He owns Six acres of land purchased from History-sheeted Ex-Sarpanch He owns 15 acres of land at Shadnagar & Medchal He owns a house at Vikrampuri, Karkhana, Secunderabad He Purchased a 2 storied building worth Rs.1.5 crores at Police lines backside, Begumpet, Hyderabad. He Owns 2 houses and 2 plots and six shops at Boyenpalli, near Sarojini Pulla Reddy’s house. He owns Six acres of land purchased from History-sheeted Ex-Sarpanch He owns 15 acres of land at Shadnagar & Medchal He owns a house at Vikrampuri, Karkhana, Secunderabad He Purchased a 2 storied building worth Rs.1.5 crores at Police lines backside, Begumpet, Hyderabad. He Owns 2 houses and 2 plots and six shops at Boyenpalli, near Sarojini Pulla Reddy’s house. He owns 400 square yards plot, opposite to Uppal Bus Depot in which he raised two shops He is running a private named Eenadu bank with partnership at BHEL, Chandanagar. He has got construction business in the name of his brother-in-law. He owns plots in and around Shadnagar near New Airport area. He owns two cars He is having property valuing above 10 crores including gold, silver and cash Thus, though the petitioner alleged that the fifth respondent was in possession of several properties disproportionate to his known sources of income, but admittedly, enquiry was conducted only with regard to few of those items on the ground that the records of Sub-Registrar office were searched and only above referred properties were found in the name of the fifth respondent and his family members. But there is nothing on record to say that who is the real owner of the remaining properties and in whose name the other properties stand. Thus, it appears that no honest and sincere efforts were made to find out the truth. Even with regard to the allegation of manipulation of the records pertaining to the date of birth of the fifth respondent, the petitioner has referred to various seniority lists showing the date of birth of the fifth respondent as 01.06.1945, which are as follows:- (i) Provisional selection list of Cadet Sis of 1972-73 batch of Hyderabad Range supplied by DIG, Hyd. Range, vide Memo No.479/G-75/HR/2009 dated 25.06.2009; (ii) Seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide Govt. Memo No.35470/Pol.E/93-3 dated 27.09.1993 of the Principal Secretary to Govt. Range, vide Memo No.479/G-75/HR/2009 dated 25.06.2009; (ii) Seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide Govt. Memo No.35470/Pol.E/93-3 dated 27.09.1993 of the Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department; (iii) Provisionaly seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide Memorandum Rc.No.2509/E1/2000 dated 05.01.2002 of DG & IGP, AP, Hyderabad; (iv) Fixation of seniority of Inspectors of Police of all ranges issued vide G.O.Ms.No.361, Home (Services-I) Department, dated 19.12.2003; (v) Integrated Statewide seniority list of Inspectors of Police issued vide Memorandum Rc.No.366/E1/2003, dated 10.04.2003 of DG & IGP, AP, Hyderabad; (vi) Fixation of Seniority of Inspectors of Police of all Ranges – Final Statewide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors issued vide Memorandum Rc.No.431/E1/2003, dated 28.01.2004 of DG & IGP, AP, Hyderabad; and (vii) AP Gazette Notification dated 25.04.2005 regarding fixation of seniority of Inspectors of Police of all Ranges issued vide G.O.Ms.No.361 Home (Services-I) Department, dated 19.12.2003. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the copies of the first and the second pages of the service register of the fifth respondent show that those pages are replaced with fake ones. The petitioner had filed copies of the service registers of some officers, namely, B. Venkata Ram Prasad and T. Radhakrishnaiah in support of his contentions that the service book of the similarly situated employees are opened by the DIG of Police / Principal, Police Training College, Anantapur, whereas the service register of the fifth respondent is opened by some other person. It is also the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent was a student of College of Arts & Science, Kamareddy. T.C.No.789 with Roll No.83 bearing the name of the fifth respondent was issued on 22.06.1970. But in the Transfer Certificate, the date of issue was mentioned as 24.06.1970, Date of admission was mentioned as 22.07.1967 and the date of leaving of college was mentioned as 24.06.1970 and that while sending the Transfer Certificate copy along with the covering letter to the petitioner under RTI Act, the Principal of the college mentioned that the fifth respondent studied in the college during 1966-1969. Thus, it is alleged that the fifth respondent, for manipulating his date of birth in his service records, utilized the Transfer Certificate of one Pundareekam Reddy, a junior to him. There cannot be any doubt to say that the fifth respondent also got awards and rewards from his department. Thus, it is alleged that the fifth respondent, for manipulating his date of birth in his service records, utilized the Transfer Certificate of one Pundareekam Reddy, a junior to him. There cannot be any doubt to say that the fifth respondent also got awards and rewards from his department. Though it appears that the petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the action of the fifth respondent when the fifth respondent issued proceedings repatriating the petitioner to his parent department and when the fifth respondent tried to serve upon him with the relieving orders, but however, the fact remains that the trouble started when the petitioner conducted surprise check on the vehicles of the third respondent along with the media on 05.03.2005. The questions as to whether the petitioner was justified in taking help of the media while making a surprise check and whether the said surprise check revealed the corrupt practices of the staff and officers of the third respondent or not are irrelevant for the present, but it appears that the petitioner made an attempt to unearth the prevailing corrupt practices. Having gone through the entire material on record, it cannot be said that the allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent are totally false and baseless and there is no need to verify the same. Since the allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent are specific with regard to possessing of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and with regard to the manipulating the date of birth in his service records, I am of the considered view that a fair and full-fledged enquiry has to be conducted into the same. Corruption constitutes a major obstacle to democracy and the rule of law. Corrupt practices in elections result in corrupt persons capturing power and who subsequently make use of their power to acquire huge illegal wealth. The high offices and the reputed institutions loose their legitimacy when they are misused for private advantage. Corruption leads to depletion of national wealth. Thus, corruption – (a) perpetualates in diverting the resources and benefits towards the rich and away from the poor; (b) reduces tax renewals to the Government and consequently reduction in public services that benefits the poor; (c) imposes an additional tax burden on the people; (d) reduce the economic growth; and (e) affects the moral values. Thus, corruption – (a) perpetualates in diverting the resources and benefits towards the rich and away from the poor; (b) reduces tax renewals to the Government and consequently reduction in public services that benefits the poor; (c) imposes an additional tax burden on the people; (d) reduce the economic growth; and (e) affects the moral values. Our country enjoys a rich diversity of cultures and it is also the largest democracy in the world. Corruption is not just an exchange of money between two persons, but it is misuse of public office for private gain.It is a fact that corruption not only directly affects the national economy, but indirectly affects every common man. Corruption has pushed the country’s economy into a trajectory of slow economic growth. Poor people are becoming poorer and rich people are getting richer day-by-day due to economic offences and corruption. Daily based commodities are going out of reach of the common man due to black marketing and hike in prices. The concerned authorities are not able to prevent the same due to corruption. Public money is going in the personal pockets, which is meant to invest on public infrastructure. Due to such diversion, many of the projects are getting delayed and in few cases, though even not started, but they are shown as completed on papers. Why should the children of our country suffer? Why they are not getting the bare and minimum necessities like nutritious food, medical facilities and education? The answer is ‘corruption’. Time is ripe for the people at the helm of the affairs for enacting stringent legislations to see that every culprit who has taken the national advantages in form of corruption should be strictly punished and all the ill-gotten wealth is confiscated to the state so that the same can be used for the benefit of the people of this country. Whenever any allegation of corruption or tampering of records is made, the truth can only be unearthed by a honest investigation. The allegations made by the petitioner have to be thoroughly investigated to find out whether there is any truth in the allegations made against the fifth respondent by the petitioner or not. If there is truth in those allegations, the guilty should be punished in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The allegations made by the petitioner have to be thoroughly investigated to find out whether there is any truth in the allegations made against the fifth respondent by the petitioner or not. If there is truth in those allegations, the guilty should be punished in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to register a case against the fifth respondent and conduct a thorough and fair investigation into all the allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent. The investigation shall be entrusted to Additional Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police in CBI under the personal supervision of the Head of the Branch (HOB). There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.