The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the need to bring transparency in the use of public funds while ensuring accountability of public servants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. A batch of 48 connected civil writ petitions (the details whereof are given at the foot of the judgment) as agreed by the learned counsel representing the parties involving the identical issues is being disposed of by a common order.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, after having heard, analysed and evaluated the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties while going through, the paper book of the lead cases, the following question arises for adjudication:-

“Whether the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1988 Act”) against the initiation of enquiry or inquiry or investigation without the previous approval of the competent authority is omnibus, universal and absolute so as to take within its sweep all the offences triable under the 1988 Act?”

3. While invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”), the petitioners call in question the action taken by the Vigilance Bureaus of the respective States of Punjab and Haryana against the officials of the Panchayat and Development Departments or the office bearer or former members of the Panchayat Institutions. Hence, the detailed facts are required to be noticed, however, to compete the narration, the facts are being taken from the Civil Writ Petition No. 4070 of 2023.

4. The petitioner, being a Panchayat Secretary, is working in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab. He prays for the issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice (Annexure P4) issued by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, in the Vigilance Enquiry No. 6 of 2022 dated 25.08.2022, Patiala, to him, Jatinder Kumar, Sarpanch, Sawinder Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Moonak and Paramjit Kaur, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, District Sangrur, while calling upon them to come present on a specified date before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau Unit, Sangrur.

5. Similarly, with respect to the State of Haryana, the facts are being noticed from the Civil Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2023. While praying for the issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari, the petitioner, who is a former Sarpanch of the village Mathana, District Kurukshetra prays for the quashing of complaint dated 10.12.2021 sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, to the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, against him, Panchayat Secretary and Junior Engineer with a request to conduct the enquiry regarding the alleged misappropriation and embezzlement of the panchayat funds.

6. In the State of Punjab, there are inter departmental communications which provide that unless the enquiry under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1994 Act”) the Vigilance Bureau should not initiate an action. In fact, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (Criminal Misc. No. M-41977 of 2015, decided on 08.12.2016) has already declared that such communications are bad in law. After examining the contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties in the context of the observations made in Vineet Narayan v. Union of India 1998(1) SCC 226, it was held that no prior sanction for the prosecution is necessary. The relevant discussion is as under:-

“An allied act done by a public servant during the exercise of official duty whereby he also commits an illegal act in the same transaction, not directly connected, resulting in misappropriation defalcation of public funds/property to the mind of this Court can never be termed to be in the discharge of public duties or in a public capacity, for which reliance is placed on ‘Siri Kishan v. State of Haryana’ 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 383. Thus, it is emphatically clear that not every offence committed by a public servant requires sanction for p