Prosecution of public servants requires sanction from the same authority that appointed them, emphasizing the importance of valid authorization under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The 2^nd accused in C.C. No.9 of 2023 on the the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, has filed this criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 20.07.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.342/2024 in the above case, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge plea at the instance of the 2^nd accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in detail. Perused the order impugned and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, during 2006-2008, accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 at Lakshadweep, Calicut and Kochi hatched a criminal conspiracy among themselves and in pursuance thereto accused Nos.1 and 2 abused their official position and unauthorisedly awarded contracts to accused No.5 for supply of granite chips and river sand from the mainland to the Islands of Lakshadweep at exorbitant rates. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were regularly paying bribes and they were also given valuable things by accused No.5 for the favour they extended. During the course of investigation, involvement of other public servants and private individuals were revealed and they were also arraigned as accused in this case. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were habitually accepting valuable things for doing official favours to accused Nos.3 and accused Nos.5 to 7 were parties to the conspiracy. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 11 , 14, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC, by the accused.

5. While seeking interference in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner sought discharge in this matter mainly urging that, the competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute the revision petitioner/ 2^nd accused, under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, since he was a public servant, working as Executive Engineer (Civil) in LPWD, is the President of India. But, in the instant case, sanction was accorded by the Administrator of Lakshadweep on the premise that, he is the person competent to appoint and remove the 2^nd accused/ revision petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, while canvasing the point that, when a person is appointed by the President of India, if at all, subsequently by way of delegation, the power of appointment was delegated to a subordinate officer by the President of India, insofar as the person who appointed by the President of India is concerned, the authority to remove him is vested within the domain of the President of India and the subsequently delegated Officer could not remove him. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner read out Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides that, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

6. The learned counsel for the