AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision has been filed by the Loyayukta Organization against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by Special Judge, (P.C. Act) in Special Case No. 05 of 2015. By the impugned order, the trial court has held that there was no valid sanction granted by the Department to prosecute the respondent.
The respondent was appointed as Block Education Officer. At that time he was working as C.E.O., Janpad Panchyat Jawa, district Rewa. The competent authority to dismiss the respondent from service was the State Government, Panchyat and Rural Development Department. The order of sanction dated 7.4.2015 has been signed by the Deputy Secretary, M.P. Government, Panchyat & Rural Development Department.
The record of grant of sanction has been produced before us. We have perused the record. As per record the Superintendent, Establishment made a note sheet in regard to grant of sanction against the respondent mentioning the fact that the respondent had made a demand of Rs.50,000/-. The written complaint was made in the office of Lokayukta Organization, Rewa against demand of bribe. Thereafter, the respondent was caught raid handed in a trap. The aforesaid note sheet was accepted subsequently by the competent authority, the Minister, Panchyat @ Rural Development Department. There is no record that the competent authority i.e. the Secretary of the Government has applied his mind in regard to grant of sanction. The authorities have simply accepted the noting of Superintendent, Establishment - II.
The Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 has held that the sanction to prosecute an employee has to be granted by the competent authority after applying its mind and after perusal of the record. The Apex Court has held as under :-
"16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
16.1 The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
16.2 The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3 The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4 The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
16.5 In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
In the present case the competent authority has not applied its mind neither perused the record, hence, in our opinion, the trial court has right held that there was no valid sanction, hence, the respondent cannot be prosecuted. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. However, the department is at liberty to grant proper sanction in the case of respondent in accordance with law.
The criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.