-
by Admin
06 December 2025 9:59 PM
“When concealment is deliberate and intended to secure public employment, it becomes a criminal act—mere procedural irregularities cannot shield dishonest conduct” — In a landmark judgment Madras High Court, through Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, upheld the conviction of an ICMR Administrative Officer and his son for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and corruption under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions. The Court held that a father's abuse of official position to secure his son’s illegal appointment in government service, coupled with concealment of ineligibility and leakage of confidential exam material, squarely attracted Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
High Court also allowed in part the State’s appeal, convicting both accused under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC for conspiracy. The judgment has far-reaching implications for institutional integrity in public recruitment and emphasizes that “nepotism, when coupled with deception and misuse of official power, is nothing short of criminality.”
“A manipulated circular, falsified eligibility, and leaked question papers—this is not mere administrative overreach; it is fraud on the Constitution”
The prosecution case was that V. Adhikesavan (A1), while serving as Administrative Officer at TRC-ICMR, Chennai, misused his position to process and promote his son A. Vijay Anand’s (A2) applications for two positions in 2005—first as a temporary Supervisor and later as a Technician. A2 lacked essential qualifications but was shortlisted, selected, and appointed, aided by suppression of facts and deliberate manipulation of procedures. Worse still, A1 leaked the confidential question paper to A2, resulting in a perfect score of 25/25.
The Trial Court had convicted A1 under Sections 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and convicted A2 under Section 420 IPC. However, it acquitted both from the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B. The CBI filed an appeal against this acquittal, while the accused challenged their conviction.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, after an exhaustive review of evidence, held:
“The suppression of qualification by A2 and the deliberate omission of his specialization in the candidate list submitted by A1 cannot be brushed aside as clerical errors. They are deliberate acts of deception—calculated to ensure an otherwise ineligible candidate passes through the scrutiny net.”
The Court observed that A2 did not possess a bachelor’s degree—a mandatory requirement for the Supervisor post—and had instead acquired a direct M.A. in Public Administration from an open university. He falsely declared his fluency in Telugu and claimed eligibility despite not having the required subject background.
“Misuse of Official Position to Benefit a Relative is Criminal Misconduct When Accompanied by Dishonest Intent” — Prevention of Corruption Act Invoked
Addressing the abuse of power under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court held:
“Entrusting confidential recruitment material to A1 carried a duty of utmost fidelity. His actions in leaking the question papers, not just to his son but also to a colleague’s son, constitute a grave breach of trust.”
“A1 did not merely fail to recuse himself. He manipulated the entire process, from advertisement to shortlisting, question paper handling to appointment. That is not negligence. That is active criminality.”
The Court relied on metadata evidence from the recovered computer system to prove that the question papers were accessed well before the scheduled date. Technical logs and the testimony of PW-15, the approver, were found credible. The fact that only two candidates—A2 and the approver’s son—scored 25/25, confirmed the inference of question paper leakage.
“A perfect score may be possible, but only under ordinary circumstances. When it coincides with tampered files and insider access, it transforms from coincidence to conspiracy.”
“Fraud on Recruitment Process is Fraud on the Constitution” — Circular Bypassing Rules Invalidated
In a scathing indictment of institutional practices, the Court found that A1 had issued a circular calling for applications for the Technician post in violation of existing recruitment rules. The original rules mandated recruitment via open advertisement and employment exchange. A1’s circular not only bypassed these but also distorted the qualification criteria to suit A2’s profile.
“The circular was designed to appear inclusive, but in substance, it was exclusionary and deceptive—tailored to ensure only A2 could qualify.”
The Court observed that A2 was appointed despite lacking the essential qualification of being a graduate or having paramedical training. His Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and distance-mode M.A. were insufficient and irrelevant to the fieldwork required for the post.
“Public employment is not a family inheritance—it is a constitutional trust. To bypass eligibility, bend rules, and falsely represent qualifications is a betrayal of that trust.”
“Conspiracy to Cheat Established: When Conduct Is Concerted, Criminal Law Must Step In”
Reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal on conspiracy, the High Court held:
“It is inconceivable that A2 could have achieved all this without the assistance and orchestration of A1. Their actions—application processing, suppression of facts, leakage of exam content—point to a concerted plan.”
However, the Court limited the scope of the conspiracy conviction to Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC, as broader conspiracy involving other charges (under Section 409 IPC and PC Act) was not independently established beyond doubt.
“Every illegal act committed in coordination is not necessarily a conspiracy for all linked offences—but the conspiracy to cheat, by concealment and misrepresentation, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
“Systemic Ethical Illiteracy Must Be Addressed”—Directions for Institutional Reform and Disciplinary Action
In one of the most powerful sections of the judgment, Justice Chakravarthy expressed grave concern over the ethical rot in public institutions:
“The fact that subsequent internal reports attempted to whitewash the selection process reveals not just failure, but complicity. There is complete ethical and moral illiteracy in the system.”
Directing immediate systemic correction, the Court ordered that:
ICMR must initiate disciplinary proceedings against A1, including post-retirement action if the rules permit.
A discreet audit must be conducted into all appointments involving employees’ kith and kin to check if essential qualifications were met.
A copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director General, ICMR, and the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, to implement corrective reforms.
“Public employment is not the fiefdom of the few; it belongs to the qualified, the deserving, and the lawfully selected.”
Sentences Modified to Simple Imprisonment, Convictions Confirmed
The Court confirmed the conviction of A1 under Sections 420, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. His sentence was modified to Simple Imprisonment for one year for each offence. Additionally, he was convicted under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and sentenced to three months’ Simple Imprisonment with a fine.
A2’s conviction under Section 420 IPC was upheld with sentence reduced to three months’ Simple Imprisonment, and an additional three months under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC.
All sentences were to run concurrently, with a surrender period of eight weeks. Medical directions were issued for A1, who was 76 years old and suffering health issues. A corrigendum dated October 15, 2025, corrected his age and directed the payment of additional fine.
Date of Judgment: 07 October 2025
