JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

The petitioner assails order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Special Court, Sangrur vide which an application dated 7.7.2019 (Annexure P-13) filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge has been declined.

2. A few facts, necessary to notice for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Municipal Council, Sangrur vide order dated 22.8.1985. One FIR i.e. FIR No. 9 dated 20.4.2018, under sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala (Annexure P-1) was lodged against the petitioner at the instance of Anil Kumar wherein he alleged that he intended to sell his house and for which he was in need of NOC which was to be issued by the Municipal Council, Sangrur. The complainant met Prem Sagar Gulati (petitioner) who demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 4,000/- for getting the NOC issued. The said amount was settled at Rs. 2,500/- which the complainant was told to bring on 20.4.2018. However, since the complainant did not wish to pay the bribe amount, he reported the matter to the Vigilance Bureau. A trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs.2,500/- as bribe from the complainant.

3. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department and pursuant thereto a challan was prepared against the petitioner. A request was made by the Vigilance Department to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sangrur for according sanction for prosecuting the accused vide request letter dated 11.9.2018 (Annexure P-6). The matter was considered by the Municipal Council, Sangrur and a Resolution No. 430 dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure P-7) was passed declining the request of the Vigilance Bureau for according sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council Sangrur, however, referred the resolution to the Director, Local Bodies. The Director, Local Bodies vide order dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure P-9) set aside Resolution No. 430 dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure P- 7), in exercise of powers under Section 236 of the PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT 1911, and directed the Executive Officer, Municipal Council to take neccessary steps for issuance of sanction order and for prosecuting the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 5.2.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sangrur issued sanction order dated 26.3.2019 (Annexure P-12) for prosecuting the accused and a copy of which was also conveyed to the SSP, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.

4. The petitioner moved an application dated 17.7.2019 (Annexure P-13) before the trial Court seeking his discharge on the ground that the appointing authority of the applicant is Municipal Council, Sangrur and not Executive Officer of the Municipal Council and that as such, the sanction order dated 26.3.2019 (Annexure P-12) is invalid having been passed by an authority which was not competent. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for his discharge, while relying upon order dated 2.3.2016 passed in C RM-M- 43085 of 2015 - Satpal Ram v. State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order dated 25.11.2019, has vehemently argued that it is the Municipal Council, which is the competent authority to take a decision as regards according any sanction for prosecuting its employee and that the Executive Officer has no authority for according sanction. It has further been submitted that as a matter o