Once a person is found unfit for service on account of intermittent and unauthorized absence for which the delinquent though has a reasonable explanation, no doubt, there is no point in continuing him in service either by reverting him or by imposing punishments like stoppage of increment, etc. But the question is, whether dismissal is the only option in such situations where an employee is found unfit for service.
Once acceptance of illegal gratification is well proved, the prosecution can avail the benefit of Section 20 (1) of the P.C Act, and once the accused failed to rebut the presumption, the said legal presumption will lead to a finding of guilty, when evidence is definite and consistent in proving the essentials. Here, I find Crl.A No.2092 of 2006 that the whole prosecution case is well proved by the evidence of the complainant, the trap witness and the Detecting Officer.
Considering the apprehension raised by the learned Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel for the defacto complainant regarding the possible violations of FEMA and other allied laws as well known and not so well known NRI businessmen have invested money in the TV channel, it becomes the bounden duty of the investigating officer to probe into all such matters arising in this case. From the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused persons at this distance of time is not required since the case revolves around mainly on documentary evidence. Continue reading