NEW DELHI: Public servants cannot be permitted to abuse their official position to settle personal scores, and if they dare to do so, they must bear the brunt of their actions by facing strict legal action, a Delhi court has held while sentencing retired CBI inspector V K Pandey and CBI joint director Ramneesh Geer. Judicial magistrate first class Shashank Nandan Bhatt directed the duo to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under various provisions of IPC, including house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt. They were also ordered to pay Rs 50,000 each as compensation to the complainant within 30 days. The case arises from a pre-dawn raid in 2000 on IRS officer Ashok Aggarwal, during which Pandey and Geer forcibly entered his residence, manhandled him and caused injuries to his right forearm. The court found that the arrest was carried out in a malafide manner to “frustrate and nullify” a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing review of his suspension. The counsel for Aggarwal submitted that the 1985-batch IRS officer underwent 38 days of incarceration due to the unlawful arrest and fought a 25-year legal battle for justice, urging the court to impose a stringent sentence to send a strong message. The defence argued that Pandey and Geer acted under the “directions of their seniors”, had no personal animosity, and maintained distinguished service records without criminal antecedents. It also contended that Pandey is retired and Geer is nearing retirement, while also citing the latter’s national and UN honours to seek leniency. Rejecting these submissions, the court held that the duo, by virtue of their positions, were “duty-bound to exercise independent judgment” and could not evade responsibility by citing superior orders. It characterised the offence as one committed with “prior concert and a pre-arranged plan”, rather than a spur-of-the-moment act, aimed at denying the complainant the benefit of the CAT order. The court refused taking a lenient view, noting that “such malafide actions, on the part of senior public officers, have the effect of shaking the societal conscience and the faith of the general public on the law of the land, and in such a situation, if a lenient view is taken against the convicts, the same would set a dangerous precedent”. Magistrate Bhatt also dismissed the mitigating factors like deteriorating health and absence of past criminal antecedents against the duo, calling them “insufficient” to warrant leniency.
