IMPORTANT POINT
When the Authority competent to accord sanction is the Governing Body under the statutory regulations and that body takes a decision there is no necessity for recording reasons to differ from the view expressed by the President who had legally no role to play.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956-Section 29(1)-All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999-Authorities competent to remove the concerned officers-Grant of sanction-Validity-Allegations against respondent 1 of demanding illegal gratification for reviewing an order of cancellation of contract-Laying of trap by Anti Corruption Branch-Recovery of money with positive tests indicating presence of phenolphthalein-Sanction for prosecution of respondent 1 granted by Governing Body-Whether legally sustainable when President, Chairman of Governing Body had suggested that sanction was not to be granted-(Yes).
       Held : Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act ) refers to the authorities competent to remove the concerned officers. The present case is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19. By notification dated 25th February, 1999 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 29 of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (in short the Act ), Regulations were brought into operation and the Regulations are called "All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999) (in short the Regulations ). In Schedule II, relating to the Appointing Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities for various posts in the Institute, it has been clearly stipulated that for Group A posts other than the "Director", the Appointing Authority is the Governing Body, and the Disciplinary Authority in respect of various penalties are the Governing Body except in respect of penalties (i) to (iv) for which President alone is the concerned Authority. Above being the position, so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is the Governing Body alone which had the authority to decide on the question of sanction. The High Court proceeded as if the decision was that of the President and it was to be ratified by the Governing Body. There was no question of any ratification because the plenary powers vested with the Governing Body alone and the President has no role to play. With reference to the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules (in short the CCA Rules ) relating to penalties and disciplinary authorities, particularly Part V it was pointed out that the major penalty was to be imposed on respondent No. 1. Therefore, it was the Governing Body alone which had the jurisdiction to accord sanction. There was no question of recording any reasons for departing from the President s view, as that is not a requirement in law. The concept of the ratification has been wrongly introduced by the High Court. (Para 9)
       When the Authority competent to accord sanction is the Governing body under the statutory Regulations and that body, as in this case takes a decision there was no necessity for recording reasons to differ from the view expressed by the President who had legally no role to play. The allocation of powers distinctly made by the statutory Regulations earmarking their own fields, subjects and topics cannot be legitimately ignored, on any assumptions or baseless presumptions. As long as the President had no individual role to play in matters exclusively earmarked and allocated to the Governing Body and the decision of the Governing Body as that of any body has to be collective one, neither the President could dictate what and how the Governing Body has to exercise its powers nor the Governing Body is obligated in any manner to deal with and give reasons to differ from the view expressed by the President, which, as noticed above he could not have in the light of the statutory Regulations themselves. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the sanction granted by the Governing Body of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short the AIIMS ) to proceed against respondent No. 1-employee was legally not sustainable. Accordingly the proceedings pursuant to the said sanction were quashed. The High Court was of the view that when the President who is the Chairman of the Governing Body had suggested that sanction was not to be granted, it was not open to the Governing Body to pass an order directing grant of sanction. The President had directed the matter to be placed before the Governing Body, it was incumbent upon the latter to examine that question alone and if a contrary view was to be taken, that was subject to passing of a reasoned order showing application of mind. Since that was not done, the order of the Governing Body was vulnerable and deserved to be nullified. Further the order of suspension, which was passed and was continued, was vacated on the ground that same was continuing for a long time without a review of the necessity for continuance thereof.

3. Since the pivotal question is whether the Governing Body s decision suffered from any infirmity, a brief reference to the factual background would suffice.

4. On 8.5.1998 a complaint was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of allegations made by one Sagir Ahmad Khan who was supplying materials to AIIMS. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent No. 1 had demanded illegal gratification for reviewing an order of cancellation and for placing orders to make further supplies by renewal of contract. The complainant produced cassettes of tapes containing recorded conversation between himself and the respondent No. 1. The transcript of the same was prepared and placed on record. On 20.7.1998 the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Branch (for short ACB ) after fixing the time and the amount of money with respondent No. 1. The complainant produced currency notes of Rs. 10,000/- before an officer of the ACB. The investigating officer prepared several memos, recorded the number of notes and applied Phenolphthalein powder on the notes and told the complainant and the panch witnesses about the procedure to be adopted. A remote tape recording system was used to collect additional evidence for laying the trap. On the basis of the conversation recorded and after the acceptance of money by the respondent No. 1, recovery was made and positive tests indicating presence of Phenolphthalein in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate was noted. A positive report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was also received regarding hand wash and pant pocket wash. Though a similar procedure was intended for another person same could not be materialised as the situation at AIIMS turned violent.

5. By an order dated 29.7.1998 respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension by the AIIMS with effect from 20.7.1998. The appellant No. 1 requested AIIMS for a sanction for prosecuting respondent No. 1. AIIMS sought certain clarification from the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Central Vigilance Commission (in short the CVC . They did not recommend grant of sanction to prosecute. The President of AIIMS passed an order on 22.3.2000 revoking the order of suspension, and declining grant of sanction to prosecute subject to ratification by the Governing Body.

6. On 3.4.2000 the Governing Body passed an order superseding the order of the President dated 22.3.2000 and the respondent No. 1 was consequently placed under suspension.

7. On 17.4.2000 the respondent No. 1 filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) for quashing the order dated 3.4.2000 and seeking other reliefs also. The stand of respondent No. 1 was that opinion of Ministry of Law and Justice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 485

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the Authority competent to accord sanction is the Governing Body under the statutory regulations and that body takes a decision there is no necessity for recording reasons to differ from the view expressed by the President who had legally no role to play.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
When the Authority competent to accord sanction is the Governing Body under the statutory regulations and that body takes a decision there is no necessity for recording reasons to differ from the view expressed by the President who had legally no role to play.