IMPORTANT POINT
Where offending news related to the complainant's official duties, the complaint under section 500 Indian Penal Code could be lodged by him only after obtaining previous sanction under Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 from the State Government.

JUDGMENT

M.D. Bhatt, J. - This revision of the accused persons is directed against the impugned order of the trial Court, whereby, their petition for dismissing the private complaint filed under section 500 of the I.P.C. for want of State Government's sanction under Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965, was rejected.

2. B K. Ramole, Dy. Collector, posted at Bilaspur and Incharge of Food and Civil Supplies Section of the Col1ectorate had filed a private complaint against the Printer, Chief Editor, and the Editor of the news weekly 'Boond Aur Moti' under section 500 of the I.P.C. in the matter of Scurrilous imputations, published against him in the weekly-issues dated 19.2.1981,22.2.1981 and 8.3.1981. Admittedly, in the matter of this complaint no sanction had been obtained by the public-servant viz. the complainant Deputy Collector B.K. Ramole. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence and had framed the charge against the applicants and non-applicant No. 3 under section 500 of the I.P.C. Later, the accused persons filed an application for dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, in accordance with Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

3. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, held that Rule 20 ibid was not attracted, in as much as the alleged character assassination, as contained in the various issues of the newspaper, were personal in nature and not connected with the official discharge of the complainant's duties as a Public Servant. Accordingly, the accused's petition, objecting to the tenability of the complaint was dismissed. Hence, now, the present revision.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants accused has urged before me that the view, taken, by the trial Court, is patently erroneous, in as much as, it was not the private character of the complainant which has been assailed in the newspaper but his conduct, as a public Servant, has principally been adversely commented upon, and as such, Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 did operate as a bar for prosecution of the accused persons, in the absence of previous sanction of the State Government. This argument is vehemently controverter by the non-applicant complainants learned counsel.

5. I have considered the arguments on both sides. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 requires previous sanction in the matter of Government Servant's vindication of acts and character in discharging of his official acts. Sub-rule (2) ibid however, is an enabling provision, dispensing with the previous sanction for recourse to Court, where vindicating of an action in a" private capacity or vindication of private character, is sought for. In the light of these rules, the publication of the news dated 19.2.1981,22.2.1981 and 8.3.1981 in the weekly-newspaper ('Boond and Moti') have been, scrutinized by me. The news as published, essentially and basically refer to the conduct of the complainant B.K. Ramole as a Public Servant, in his capacity as a Food and Civil Supplies Officer of the District in the matter of certain alleged-bunglings with regard to distribution of essential supplies, like Kerosene oil, diesel and food-grains etc. through the Ration. Shops or otherwise. This publication of all the news does not prima facie indicate and any assassination of his individual and personal character. The news, as published, principally relate to the complainant's official duties, which are inextricably interrelated to the mode of his performance of the official duties. Obviously, there is full reasonable connection between the complainant's acts and his discharge of duties; and as such, disagreeing with the trial Court, I am of the view that Rule 20(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 is attracted in the present case; and the complaint, filed by the Deputy Collector B.K. Ramole is not competent, in the absence of previous sanction by the State Government.

6. In the re