14 years on, Telangana HC refuses to drop corruption case against govt officer

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court dismissed the petition of a former government employee seeking to quash 14-year-old corruption charges against him.

Azmeera Kailas worked as an Assistant Divisional Engineer with the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL).

In 2010, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) raided his properties and found that from January 2002 to December 2010, he had accumulated far more money than his government salary. They found Rs 47.03 lakh unaccounted cash for which he failed to give a satisfactory explanation.

According to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a government must sanction or give a formal permission before prosecuting its employee for corruption.

In October 2024, the Telangana government granted the sanction, 10 years after ACB filed a formal complaint in November 2014. The agency stated that during the decade-long wait, 19 reminder letters were sent to the government and blamed the wait on alleged government procedural lapses.

Arguments by accused

Azmeera Kailas approached the Telangana High Court, pleading that the case be dismissed against him as the government had exceeded the legal time limit (four months) to grant the formal permission. In addition, the sanction, he alleged, was granted without proper thought.

He said he was given a clean chit in the departmental inquiry and hence the criminal case should be dropped.

Waited long enough, case should be quickly over: HC

However, the Telangana High Court struck down the petition, asking why Kailas did not challenge the delays during the years.

It pointed out that the ACB actively sought government clearance but could not due to administrative delays, which do not invalidate criminal proceedings, and hence the accused cannot escape prosecution.

On the departmental clearance, the High Court found that his department had cleared him only on a technicality, because many other employees had also not followed the rules; it was considered unfair to single him out.

The court ordered that the trial must proceed and be completed as quickly as possible. It noted that the case relates to events from 2011 and has already been delayed long enough.