AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Khulbe, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21 August, 2014 passed by respondent no.1(Principal Secretary, Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva) Government of Uttarakhand by which sanction to prosecute the petitioner is issued by exercising powers under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed in pursuance of the order dated 21 August, 2014.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing all further orders issued in consequence to the order dated 21 August, 2014.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 07.08.2013 at about 9:30 a.m., the petitioner while posted as Superintendent Engineer at Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Haldwani was trapped by Vigilance Department for taking bribe of Rs.25,000/-. On the basis of that, FIR was lodged on 07.08.2013 at 13:15 hrs. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and on 21.08.2014 the sanction was granted under Section 19(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for taking cognizance against the petitioner/ accused.
It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the crime and no offence is made out against him. Apart from that, the sanction letter dated 21.08.2014 was issued by the Principal Secretary, Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva (Vigilance) Section, while neither he was the appointing authority nor he had the power to dismiss the petitioner, and the sanction letter dated 21.08.2014 is illegal and bad in law.
While as per Section 19(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the State Government has a power to grant sanction for prosecution, in the present case neither such proceeding was initiated by the State Government regarding it nor any sanction was granted by the State Government, as per Section Sub-section 1(d) of Section 19 (U.P. State Amendment) which is reproduced as under:-
"(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c), the State Government may, where it considers necessary so to do, require the authority referred to in clause (c), to give previous sanction within the period specified in this behalf and if the said authority fails to give the previous sanction within such period, the previous sanction may be given by the State Government."
From the perusal of Sub-section 1(a) of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is clear that if any person employed in connection with the affairs of Union and is not removable from his office, the sanctioning authority is the Central Government. As per clause 1(b), if a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, the State Government has a power to grant sanction. As per Sub-section 1(c), in case the person is employed under any authority, the sanctioning authority will be competent to issue sanction for prosecution. Sub-clause (d) was inserted by U.P. Act No.4 of 1991 which was effected from 01.09.1990.
From the perusal of Sub-section (d) of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is clear that, if any authority, as prescribed under sub-clause (c), fails to grant sanction, in that situation the State Government has a power to grant sanction for prosecution.
To verify this fact whether the impugned sanction letter dated 21.08.2014 was, in fact, issued by the Principal Secretary as the Officer of the State Government on behalf of the State or it was issued as Principal Secretary, Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva (Vigilance) Section.
On the last occasion, the State Counsel was directed by the Court to produce the record of the State Government, and the competent officer of the concerned department was also directed to appear before the Court. In compliance of that order, today, the Joint Secretary of Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva (Vigilance) Section, Uttarakhand, Mr. R.K. Tomar is present with record and admitted that the impugned sanction letter dated 21.08.2014 was, in fact, issued by Principal Secretary, Dr. S.S. Sandhu, who was the Principal Secretary of the Department of Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan Jan Seva. No sanction letter was issued by the State Government.
From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned letter dated 21.08.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary, Dr. S.S. Sandhu as a Principal Secretary, Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva, it was not issued by him in the capacity of an Officer of the State. In fact, the State Government had not initiated the proceeding regarding it to issue sanction letter for prosecution against the petitioner.
Since, no sanction was granted by the State Government under Sub-clause (d) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute the case against the present petitioner, while as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before taking cognizance, it is necessary that a sanction must be issued as per the clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 19 as the case may be. While in the present case, no such sanction was granted either by the competent authority or by the State Government.
In these circumstances, the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the impugned sanction letter dated 21.08.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary, Suraj Avam Bhrstachar Unmulan and Jan Seva, is hereby set aside.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.