The Management of a private school is the only competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and any sanction granted by an incompetent authority is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

1. By preferring this revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 26.10.2023 passed below Exh.35 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special (ACB) Case No.4/2016 for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The applicant is an employee of a private school who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in “Sant Vidyalaya, Mindala, taluka Nagbhid, district Chandrapur.” The said school is run by “Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Magasvargiya Mandal, Mindala”. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired as Assistant Teacher on 30.9.2019. On 3.11.2014, Dipak Natthuji Ambade, who claims to have worked as Lecturer at “Sant Hardas Junior Arts College, Mindala, approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (the bureau) at Chandrapur alleging that co-accused Ashok Narayan Khandale, through the applicant, informed him that the informant has to pay Rs.3,50,000/- for regularizing his services from non-grant to grant-in-aid basis. As he was not willing to pay the amount, he approached the office of the bureau and lodged a complaint. On 3.11.2014, trap was arranged. The verification of the demand was done in presence of the panchas. On 3.11.2014, co-accused Ashok Narayan Khandale was caught accepting the gratification amount. The applicant was arraigned as an accused on an allegation that he abetted commission of such crime. Accordingly, he along with the co-accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act).

3. The applicant has filed an application vide Exh.35 for discharge under Section 239 of the Code. Initially, the applicant has filed an application which came to be rejected. Against the said order, revision bearing Criminal Revision Application No.87/2021 was filed, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to raise a ground of absence of sanction. The application was filed on the ground that no sanction was obtained prior to prosecuting the applicant. The cognizance is taken by the Special Court, in absence of sanction, which is not permissible. It is further contended that officer of the bureau issued communication in the name of the Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, dated 4.2.2016 for obtaining the sanction. The Education Officer accorded the sanction though he is not the competent authority. The court cannot take cognizance against the accused on invalid sanction.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri A.A.Naik for the applicant, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (the MEPS Act) and the Rules framed thereunder of the year 1981, the applicant being the employee of private school, the Management which runs the school would be authority competent to remove him from the office within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the P.C.Act. Pursuant to such provision, the officer of the bureau has to obtain the sanction from the Management. The officers of the bureau approached the Education Officer and the Education Officer accorded the sanction though he was not competent authority. In fact, only the Management is competent to remove the applicant from the employment under the provisions of Section 4 of the MEPS Act. The Government could not have power to accord the sanction and, therefore, the Director of Education is not the competent authority. No sanction was obtained from the competent authority before launching the prosecution against the applicant. He submitted that Section 2(12) of the MEPS Act defines the Management. As there is no valid sanction, the prosecution against the applicant in absence of the valid sanction vitiates the entire proceeding. Therefore, the applicant is to be discharged from the charges.

5. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on followin