Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
Lakshmi Kanth Shinde @ L.K. Shinde – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 10831 of 2012
Decided On : 02-12-2015
For the Petitioner:T. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G.P. for Home and R. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) - Anti-Corruption Bureau -Writ petition challenge is to Memorandum issued by respondent State Government - By virtue of said memorandum State Government permitted Anti-Corruption Bureau to file charge-sheet against petitioner in the Court of law and petitioner is also praying for Quashment of proceedings in - Petitioner joined in State Police Department as a Sub-Inspector and got promotion as Inspector of Police and as a Deputy Superintendent of Police - Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau Department passed orders deciding to refuse sanction for prosecution while ordering to place matter before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry into allegations of corruption - Thereafter as a consequence of said orders State Government vide asked Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct enquiry - Held, Prevention of Corruption Act competent authority should peruse concerned documents and come to a definite conclusion that it is a case for prosecution or otherwise - It will be a futile exercise if sanction order is passed in a routine manner authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to facts of case evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction - Legislature has conferred on authority competent to remove public servant from office power to grant sanction for reason that is competent to judge whether on facts alleged there has been an abuse or misuse of office held by the public servant - That authority would be in a position to know what was power conferred on office which public servant holds how that power could be abused for corrupt motive and whether it has been so done - Writ petition allowed (Para 13)
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
1. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the Memorandum No.1697/SC-A/A2/2008-4 dated 22.08.2011 issued by the first respondent State Government. By virtue of the said memorandum, the State Government permitted the Anti-Corruption Bureau to file charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of law and the petitioner is also praying for quashment of the proceedings in CC No.16 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases.
2. According to the petitioner, he joined in the State Police Department as a Sub-Inspector on 20.09.1978 and got promotion as Inspector of Police on 08.02.1989 and as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 09.12.2005. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, Hyderabad registered Cr.No.33/ACB/CIU-HYD/2008 against the petitioner and another under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 I.P.C. On the representation made by the petitioner, requesting to drop the proceedings, on receipt of the final report dated 27.09.2010 of the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1954, Home (SC.A) Department dated 06.11.2010, passed orders, deciding to refuse sanction for prosecution while ordering to place the matter before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry into the allegations of corruption. Thereafter, as a consequence of the said orders, the State Government vide Lr.No.1697/SC.A/A2/2008-4, dated 10.11.2010, asked the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct enquiry.
3. On 31.05.2011, petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Based on a letter dated 30.11.2010 of the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, the State Government by virtue of Memorandum No. No.1697/SC-A/A2/2008-4 dated 22.08.2011, permitted the Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau, to file a charge-sheet in the Court. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, as evident from the material on record, filed the charge-sheet on 23.07.2011 vide C.C.No.16 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases. Challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said Memorandum dated 22.08.2011 of the State Government and the proceedings in C.C.No.16/2011, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
4. This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi, granted interim stay on 18.04.2012 in WPMP.No.13694/2012. Responding to the Rule Nisi and denying the allegations and averments made in the writ affidavit, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent and a reply affidavit is also filed by the writ petitioner.
5. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner on record Sri T.Nagarjun Reddy and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the State and Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corruption Bureau apart from perusing the material available on record.
6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the very action of granting permission by the State Government and the prosecution against the petitioner is a patent abuse of process of law and highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further contended that the action of the State Government in granting permission to file charge-sheet is totally one without jurisdiction and is a result of total non-application of mind. It is the further submission of the of the learned Senior Counsel that having refused to accord permission to prosecute the petitioner earlier, it is absolutely not open for the State Government to permit the ACB to file charge-sheet after superannuation of the petitioner without there being any
