Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Dipankar Datta, J.
Vipul Raj
Vs.
Union of India & other
WP No. 38159 (W) of 2013
Decided On : 30.6.2014
SANCTION TO PROSECUTE - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 19(4) - DELHI HIGH COURT - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - SECTION 19 - SUMMARY: The Delhi High Court modified the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to the extent that it would not be necessary to send the matter again to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as directed by the tribunal but a copy of the advice of the CVC may be supplied to the petitioner who shall be at liberty to offer his comments there against, whereafter a fresh order shall be passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner raised the question of validity of sanction before the learned Special Judge who held that the sanction order was defective as the appointing authority/removing authority did not sign on the sanction order. The Director General considered the matter afresh and by his order dated February 27, 2012 accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner recording the grounds of satisfaction. The court held that the Director General on his own could not have accorded sanction in the absence of a request from the CBI, the Director General was not required to wait for a further request of the CBI to accord sanction, the Director General has been activated by the dictation of the learned Special Judge, the order of the Director General does not take into consideration all relevant points and suffers from non-application of mind, the order under challenge is in the teeth of the decision in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an administrative officer of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), is accused of commission of offence punishable in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and is standing trial before the CBI Court (Special), Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 25 of 2003. An order dated February 27, 2012 passed by the Director General of ICAR, respondent no. 3, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition primarily on the ground that sanction was not asked for by the prosecutor and that there has been absolutely no application of mind on the part of the Director General in according such sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Director General on his own could not have accorded sanction in the absence of a request from the CBI, the Director General was not required to wait for a further request of the CBI to accord sanction, the Director General has been activated by the dictation of the learned Special Judge, the order of the Director General does not take into consideration all relevant points and suffers from non-application of mind, the order under challenge is in the teeth of the decision in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra).
Issues: 1. Whether the Director General on his own could have accorded sanction in the absence of a request from the CBI? 2. Whether the Director General was required to wait for a further request of the CBI to accord sanction? 3. Whether the Director General has been activated by the dictation of the learned Special Judge? 4. Whether the order of the Director General does not take into consideration all relevant points and suffers from non-application of mind? 5. Whether the order under challenge is in the teeth of the decision in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant is rather well-known. It is trite that sanction cannot be accorded mechanically; the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind to the facts of the case as well as the material and evidence collected during investigation and it is, thereafter, that the satisfaction as to whether sanction to prosecute ought to be accorded or not has to be recorded in course thereof. 2. The sanctioning authority must ensure that there is no external pressure or forces compelling him to act in a particular direction and the action must, therefore, be free from any extraneous consideration.
Final Decision: The writ petition is devoid of substance and, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. This writ petition dated December 23, 2013 is at the instance of an administrative officer of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereafter the ICAR). He is presently under suspension.
2. The petitioner is accused of commission of offence punishable in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter the P.C. Act) and is standing trial before the CBI Court (Special), Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Special Case No. 25 of 2003. An order dated February 27, 2012 passed by the Director General of ICAR, respondent no. 3, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition primarily on the ground that sanction was not asked for by the prosecutor and that there has been absolutely no application of mind on the part of the Director General in according such sanction, particularly when an earlier sanction that was accorded was found by the criminal court to be defective and incompetent.
3. The facts preceding this writ petition may be noticed.
4. On an allegation that the petitioner had asked for a bribe of Rs. 8000/- for release of a bill of Rs. 44,500/- of a contractor, an FIR was drawn up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) bearing no. RC 35 (4/2002) under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Upon completion of investigation, police report under Section 173(2), Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter the Cr. P.C.) was filed vide charge-sheet no. 7/2003 dated June 20, 2003 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1d) of the P.C. Act. The petitioner applied under Section 19(4) of the P.C. Act read with Section 465(2) of the Cr. P.C. which was turned down by an order dated September 24, 2004 and a date was fixed for framing of charge. Challenging such order, the petitioner approached this Court in the criminal revisional jurisdiction. The point raised by the petitioner was that sanction was accorded by the Director (Vigilance) of the ICAR, although it was the Director General of the ICAR who was the authority competent to accord sanction. Since the petitioner perceived the sanction as bad in law, he prayed for quashing of such sanction. A learned Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated February 19, 2005, spurned the challenge to the order of sanction, holding that there was no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner; consequently, the revisional application stood dismissed. The said judgment and order was made the subject matter of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The same was disposed of on July 28, 2008, holding that the Court did not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order under challenge. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to raise the question of sanction not being valid before the trial court and in case such question was raised, the trial court was directed to decide the question on merits uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. The special leave petition stood disposed of accordingly. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and removed from service by his disciplinary authority. Challenge to the order of removal laid by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal succeeded on a technical ground; the order of removal was set aside by an order dated April 20, 2009. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated without any consequential benefits. The departmental proceedings were directed to be completed in terms of the directions contained therein. A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by the ICAR, whereupon the order of the tribunal was modified to the extent that it would not be necessary to send the matter again to the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter the CVC) as directed by the tribunal but a copy of the advice of the CVC may be supplied to the petitioner who shall be at liberty to offer his comments there against, whereafter a fresh order shall be passed by the disciplinary autho
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
