Introduction
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 plays a crucial role in curbing corruption in public services across India. It targets not only bribe-taking but also the misuse of power by public servants. One of the most serious offences under this law is criminal misconduct, which directly addresses dishonest conduct by government officials. The 2018 amendment has refined this section to focus on clear, provable acts of corruption.
What Constitutes Criminal Misconduct?
A public servant commits criminal misconduct in two major ways:
Misappropriation of Property: If a public servant dishonestly or fraudulently misuses or converts for personal use any property entrusted to them or under their control, it qualifies as criminal misconduct. This also includes allowing someone else to do the same.
Illicit Enrichment: If a public servant enriches themselves beyond their lawful income while in office, it is also criminal misconduct. The law presumes illicit enrichment when a public servant or someone on their behalf holds wealth or assets far beyond known income sources.
What Is “Known Sources of Income”
The term refers only to lawful income that the public servant has earned through legitimate means. If they fail to justify the source of excess assets, it amounts to illicit enrichment under the law.
Any public servant found guilty of criminal misconduct faces a minimum imprisonment of one year. The sentence may extend up to seven years. In addition, the guilty official will also have to pay a fine.
Case: Former Vidhan Bhavan Cashier Jailed for Disproportionate Assets
A special court in Mumbai convicted the accused, a cashier at Vidhan Bhavan, for criminal misconduct under Sections 13(1)(b)/(d) and 13(2) of the PCA. The court found that accused held assets worth ₹15.95 lakh, over 100% more than his known legitimate income of ₹14.75 lakh from 1991 to 2004. His holdings included two flats and a farmhouse. Since he couldn’t reasonably explain this disproportion, the court deemed it illicit enrichment. It sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹50,000 fine.
This case underscores the law’s emphasis on illicit enrichment, as defined in Section 13(1)(b)/(d). When a public servant cannot explain excess assets compared to known lawful income, the burden shifts to them to justify it. The accused’s failure to do so led to a conviction and one of the stiffest sentences under the Act. The judgment reinforces zero tolerance for corruption among public servants, even in lower-level bureaucratic roles.
Conclusion
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ensures strict action against public servants who misuse their position for personal gain. By targeting both misappropriation and unexplained wealth, the law strengthens India’s fight against deep-rooted corruption. The 2018 amendments further narrowed the focus to serious, provable misconduct, making enforcement more precise and effective. This provision reinforces the principle that no public official is above the law.
