IMPORTANT POINT
The provision in Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be construed liberally and not in a mechanical or pedantic manner and at the stage of grant of sanction, when the charges or allegations are yet to be enquired into and established, previous approval of the Standing Committee is not the pre-condition.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 161 and 165-Prosecution for offences under-Respondent, an Assistant Engineer in service of Municipal Corporation was caught accepting money-Municipal Commissioner granted sanction for prosecuting respondent-Respondent was in receipt of basic minimum salary which was less than Rupees twelve hundred per month-Charges framed-Sanction granted by Municipal Commissioner without obtaining previous approval of Standing Committee-Validity challenged-Whether the previous sanction required by Section 6(1)(c) of the Act was validly granted by the Commissioner in the case of respondent?-(Yes)-It was not necessary that before according such sanction, Commissioner should have obtained previous approval of the Standing Committee-Provision in Section 6(1) should be construed liberally and not in a mechanical or pedantic manner.
Held : That the object of Section 6(1)(c) or for that matter Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that there should be no unnecessary harassment of public servant; the idea is to save the public servant from the harassment which may be caused to him if each and every aggrieved or disgruntled person is allowed to institute a criminal complaint against him. The protection is extended against prosecution even by a State agency but the protection is not absolute or unqualified. If the authority competent to remove such public servant accords previous sanction, such prosecution can be instituted and proceeded with. The law presumes - and the Court must also presume until the contrary is established-that such authority will act fairly and objectively and will accord sanction only where he is satisfied that the charge(s) against the public servant requires to be enquired into by a Court. The authority is presumed to, and expected to, act consisted with public interest and the interest of law-both of which demand that while a public servant be not subjected to harassment, genuine charges and allegations should be allowed to be examined by the Courts. Both the considerations aforesaid should be present in the mind of the authority while deciding the question of grant of previous sanction required by Section 6(1)(c) of the Act or, for that matter, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Requiring the previous approval of the Standing Committee at this stage, when the charges or allegations are yet to be enquired into and established, would be imposing an impractical pre-condition. One can understand the Standing Committee considering the matter at the end of a disciplinary enquiry or a criminal trial, when definite findings would be available which would enable the Standing Committee to take a decision whether or not to accord previous approval to the Commissioner to dismiss the delinquent employee/officer. But at the stage of grant of sanction, bringing in Standing Committee may not be consistent with the object underlying the said provisions. The Standing Committee admittedly is not the competent authority; competent authority remains the Municipal Commissioner. The previous approval of the Standing Committee is only a pre-condition to the exercise of power of dismissal by the Commissioner. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Respondent, K.K. Jagtiani, was an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay. On the basis of a complaint received, a trap was laid. The respondent was caught accepting the money. The Municipal Commissioner granted sanction for prosecuting the respondent and another employee under Seciton 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code on January 4, 1988. On that date, the respondent was in receipt of basic minimum salary which was less than Rupees twelve hundred per month. In due course, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in the court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and framed charges. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the sanction granted by the Municipal Commissioner without obtaining the previous approval of the Standing Committee of the Corporation is not valid and competent in law inasmuch as the Municipal Commissioner by himself was not competent to remove him. The learned Special Judge over-ruled the objection, which was challenged by the respondent by way of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge has upheld the objection and allowed the writ petition.

3. Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, insofar as it is relevant, reads :

"6(1). No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code or under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction-

Section 83 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act prescribes the authorities competent to impose various punishments upon its employees. It reads :

"83(1) Every municipal officer and servant may be fined, reduced, suspended or dismissed for any breach of departmental rules or discipline or for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of duty or other misconduct, by the authority by whom such officer or servant is appointed ;

(2) Provided that-

(a) no officer appointed to a post, The minimum monthly salary exclusive of allowances of which is rupees one thousand two hundred or more shall be dismissed by the Commissioner, without the previous approval of the standing committes or in the case of an officer appointed for the purposes of clause (q) of Section 61, of the Education Committee;

(b) any officer appointed by the corporation under Sections 55, 56A, 74, 75, 76B, 77, 78A or 78C may be suspended by the standing committee and any officer appointed by the corporation under Section 76A may be suspended by the Education Committee, pending in each case an order of the corporation and every such suspension and the reasons therefor shall be forthwith reported to the Corporation;

(c) any officer appointed by the corporation otherwise than under Sections 55, 56A, 74, 75, 76A, 77, 78A or 78C may, for any breach of departmental rules or discipline, or for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of duty or other misconduct be fined, reduced or suspended by the Commissioner, or may, with the previous approval of the standing committee or in the case of an officer appointed for the purposes of clause (q) of Section 61 of the Education Committee, be dismissed by the Commissioner ;

(d) any officer or servant immediately subordinate to the Municipal Chief Auditor and drawing a salary not exceeding rupees two hundred and fifty per month exclusive of allowances may, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as the standing committee may deem fit to prescribe, and subject to a right of appeal to the standing committee, be fined, reduced or suspended for any breach

Click Here to Read the rest of this document