BHUBANESWAR: Nineteen years is a long time for anyone to prove his honesty. But Jagannath Mishra, a junior rank state government official, did not lose hope. And he was rewarded with an overwhelming sense of victory for his patience and perseverance when the special vigilance judge recently acquitted him of corruption charges, leveled against him by the vigilance department after he blew the whistle in an illegal land grab case.

"The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not hold him guilty," the judge said. "Since he (Mishra) is on bail, he will be discharged from the bail bond," the judge ordered.

The 38-page judgment corroborated the mounting public feeling against the vigilance department that it is functioning tendentiously more to please the vested interests in the government and the administration than tracking the corrupt really. "My problem started after I submitted a report exposing the attempts by some people to illegally grab nearly 815 acres of government land in Sipasarubali area near Puri. I did not imagine then that my report would not be to the liking of many senior officials in the administration. The then collector summoned me and threatened me but I stood my ground. Official proceedings were then initiated against me. Before I could know why, the vigilance department raided my residence in Puri, paternal house at the nearby village, Bira Purusottampur, and my office. The search revealed my bank pass book had just Rs 402 and the total household articles were estimated worth only a few thousand rupees," recounted Mishra, a former assistant consolidation officer (ACO). "Vigilance raids usually carry a negative stigma in the society. I come from a family where everybody hates to touch others' money. My mother upon hearing my plight suffered a brain stroke and was paralyzed. I decided to fight it out in the court," added Mishra, who retired in March last year, ending his service career almost ignominiously, being denied promotion even increments.

The vigilance department submitted two chargesheets after calculating Mishra's known sources of income from October 30, 1973 to June 20, 1994, expenditure and probably savings during the period. According to the judgment, the vigilance department initiated action against Mishra after 'confidential inquiry' that he accumulated disproportionate assets.

But the judgment reveals a different story that the vigilance department manipulated figures to justify the case. "The investigating officer has submitted a second report wherein the previous income shown has been reduced and the value of the assets and amount of expenditure inflated," the judge said, adding no additional information had been collected or documents obtained to justify the second report. The judge also expressed surprise as to why the value of the household articles had been 'increased'.

Dissatisfied with the claims made by the vigilance department, the court itself made the calculation based on evidence placed before it and valued Mishra's total assets worth Rs 4,72,324.76 as against his 'probable savings' of Rs 11,28,523.73, before acquitting him.

But why did the vigilance department slap a false case against him? The investigating officer's confession in the court proves Mishra's point that he was victimized for refusing to oblige the vested interests in the government. The judgment quoted the investigative officer as 'clearly admitting' that he built the case against Mishra by reducing his income and inflating the value of assets and expenditure at the instance of his boss, the SP.