Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
R.C. Mishra and Vimla Jain, JJ.
Special Police Establishment
Vs.
State of M.P.
W.P. No. 1237 of 2001
Decided On: 02.02.2011
The main legal point established is that the exercise of discretionary power to grant or refuse sanction for prosecution must be based on relevant considerations and independent consideration of material, and the refusal based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations is arbitrary and erroneous.
Headnote:
Sanction - Corruption in Selection Process - M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 - Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 16 - The court discussed the provisions of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 and the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, highlighting the superintendence of investigation by the Lokayukta and the role of the State Government in granting sanction for prosecution. The court emphasized the need for independent consideration of material for granting sanction and the invalidity of considering irrelevant factors in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved irregularities and corruption in the selection process of Shiksha Karmis Grade III in a Panchayat, leading to the appointment of ineligible candidates and manipulation of records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal of sanction for prosecution was based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, and the exercise of discretionary power was vitiated. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the reconsideration of the matter for grant of sanction independently.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of sanction for prosecution of public servants found involved in corruption and irregularities in the selection process, and the validity of the reasons for refusal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exercise of discretionary power to grant or refuse sanction must be based on relevant considerations and independent consideration of material. The refusal of sanction based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations was deemed arbitrary and erroneous.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The Principal Secretary was directed to reconsider the matter for grant of sanction independently.
1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner Special Police Establishment (for short "Spe") seeks writ of certiorari for order dated 28-10-2000 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Bhopal in relation to a case registered as Crime No. 146/98 at Bhopal Office of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and also under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, refusing sanction to prosecute public servants found involved therein and writ of mandamus requiring the Respondent-State to reconsider and decide the matter of granting sanction, independently on the basis of relevant material placed on record.
2. The case was registered on 18-11-1998, upon a complaint regarding irregularities, illegalities and corruption allegedly committed in the process of selection of Shiksha Karmis Grade III in the Janpad Panchayat Jawa, Distt. Rewa. Its investigation revealed that:
(a) As many as 193 candidates were appointed whereas Janpad Panchayat, Jawa had invited applications for recruitment to only 170 posts of Shiksha Karmis Grade III (110 in the School Education Department and 60 in the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission).
(b) As against 160 posts fallen vacant after the aforesaid selection process, in all 198 candidates were appointed.
(c) Appointments were made without following the statutory rules viz. Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 and regulations including those governing reservation.
(d) The candidates, who were found ineligible in the process for selection to fill up 170 advertised posts, were subsequently appointed against the post falling vacant.
(e) The procedure laid down in Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification and Vacancies) Act, 1959 for filling up the vacancies was not followed.
(f) Some of the candidates who were not even selected were appointed.
(g) Bonus marks were awarded without there being certificate of teaching experience or on the basis of false or irrelevant teaching experience certificate.
(h) Ineligible candidates were selected under the physically handicapped category as well as under the Ex-Serviceman category.
(i) Over-aged candidates were also selected.
(j) Records relating to marks obtained were manipulated with a view to providing appointments to some of the candidates who were either related to members of the Selection Committee or were otherwise undeserving.
(k) In all 19 persons including 6 public servants namely Babulal Tiwari, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jawa, Subbanlal Shrivastava, the then Block Education Officer, Balram Prasad Tiwari, Lecturer in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Parouna, Shambhu Nath Gupta, Asstt. Jila Shala Inspector, Nand Gopal Tiwari, the then Teacher at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sitlaha and Smt. Asha Mishra, Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Gohana, were found involved in the offences.
3. Investigation Report and the corresponding records were forwarded to Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Bhopal along with a letter of request for grant of sanction to prosecute all the six public servants under Section 19(1)(b) & (c) of the Act in respect of the offences punishable under the Act and that under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute Babulal Tiwari, Subbanlal Shrivastava, and Balram Prasad Tiwari for the offences punishable under the Penal Code. However, for the reasons recorded in the order under challenge, the Additional Secretary in the Department declined to grant anyone of these sanctions.
4. Instead of filing return, the Respondent/State has preferred to raise preliminary objection, by way of Interim Application No. 1720-W/2001, as to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the SPE, being an integral part of the Stat
