Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a registered union of Maval Taluka General Kamgar Sanghtna. It is asserted that one of the objects of petitioner No. 1 is to ensure that dishonest employees are not given any benefit. Petitioner No. 2 is resident of Kirkee. Respondent No. 3 is an employee of respondent No. 1-Board. He is Health Superintendent/Garden Superintendent. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau Department of Pune in connection with a complaint lodged by petitioner No. 2 alleging therein that for installation of illegal steel cabin near a bus stop to run a business of repairing scooter and motor-cycle etc., respondent No. 4 had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from petitioner No. 2 as illegal gratification. Police Inspector, Anti Corruption, Pune, wrote a letter to the President of Cantonment Board, Kirkee, on January 25, 2001, stating that respondent No. 4 was arrested by police for accepting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- illegally by promising petitioner No. 2 and allowing him to keep a cabin near bus stop.

9. Respondent-Board and its Officers, on the other hand, supported the action taken by the Board. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 wherein it was stated that the petition was not filed as a Public Interest Litigation but is an individual grievance. Petitioner No. 2 has disputes with respondent No. 4. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the Union is in Maval area which does not come within the limits of Kirkee Cantonment Board. It was then stated that a complaint was filed by Anti Corruption Department against respondent No. 4 for illegal acceptance of Rs. 10,000/- from petitioner No. 2 Cantonment Board has given necessary sanction to the Department to file a criminal case against respondent No. 4. It was not true that respondent No. 4 was caught red handed as alleged. From the charge-sheet filed by the Anti Corruption Department against respondent No. 4, it was clear that Rs. 10,000/- were found in the file which was placed in a rack near the table occupied by respondent No. 4. It was further stated by the deponent that the Cantonment Board independently examined the facts and circumstances of the case and formed an opinion that the allegation made by petitioner No. 2 did not seem to be probable. Further, allotment of cabin was not within the power of respondent No. 4. Such allotment can only be made by the first respondent.