The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority for according sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the State Government, and not the disciplinary committee. The judgment also emphasizes that passing of judicial orders before reaching finality and without any other circumstances denoting that the orders were passed for oblique purpose cannot be made a foundation for concluding that the concerned Presiding Officer committed an offence.

P.D. Kode, J.

1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.40 of 2000 of the Court of Civil Judge(S.D.), Pune has prayed for –

(i) Setting aside the administrative order dated 6th January, 2012 of Hon'ble Chief Justice, Bombay High Court.

(ii) Directing the Disciplinary Committee to take decision on his complaint as per rule of law preferably within 30 days period as High Court itself is disciplinary authority.

(iii) In event of sanctioning authority according sanction, permitting the petitioner to prosecute respondent No.4 along with Respondent No.2 as per Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(iv) Passing any other or further order or orders as deem fit and proper by the Court in the interest of Justice.

2. The petitioner in person urged that he is forced to approach this Court as his request for according sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute respondent No.2-Presiding Officer of Special Civil Suit No.40 of 2000 has been rejected in one sentence by respondent No.3 and so also his review application dated 31st January, 2012 and subsequent reminder dated 5th February, 2014 for acting upon the said application, having remained unreplied by respondent No.3 and so also the submission dated 16th April, 2012 of Additional Secretary, Law Department of respondent No.1 to review the petitioner's application dated 31st January, 2012 also having remained unacted.

3. He urged that cause for approaching this Court for such reliefs has mainly arisen regarding the manner in which respondent No.2 has passed the order at Exh-71-A dated 8th February, 2006 and the order at Exh-74 dated 13th February, 2006 (in the above referred Civil Suit).

4. He urged that he has filed said suit against employer Bank respondent No.4 for setting aside two punishments imposed upon him in a disciplinary proceeding taken, for setting aside an order of removal of him from Bank services and also for paying him a compensation of Rs. 26.75 lacs for his illegal removal from service and so also for declaring himself deemed to be in the service w.e.f. 1st October, 1994.

5. He urged that he had made a complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C. against six officials of respondent No.4 for commission of criminal acts during said two departmental inquiries conducted. The said Court ordered the respondent No.4 to furnish certified copies of about 200 documents relevant to subject matter of said complaint made. However, the respondent No.4 on 29th March, 2003 filed a pursis stating that said record was not traceable. The said Court in April, 2003 at the stage of framing of charge, dismissed the said complaint due to non production of said record. He urged that however much later on in month of February, 2013 three Executive Officers of respondent No.4 deposed in above referred Civil suit that they were not aware of issuing of any such pursis of missing of the record. They further stated that they were not aware of any correspondence of missing of the record ensued with any of the branches of respondent No.4 and so also being unaware about any action being initiated/taken by respondent No.4 against the officers concerned with missing of the record.

6. The petitioner urged that in Civil Suit on 9th December, 2005 he submitted an affidavit by way of his evidence and the same was taken on record on 6th February, 2006 without raising any objection about the admissibility of the documents referred therein. The Court also allowed his application for production of documents vide order dated 10th February, 2004. It is submitted that his evidence amongst other consisted of about 72 documents running into 475 pages. He was duly cross examined on behalf of respondent No.4 on 6th, 8th and 13th February, 2006.

7. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent No. 4, submitted written notes of final arguments on 2nd March, 2006 in the suit. The said notes then