K.K. VASHISHTH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this appeal has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dtd. 15/3/2021 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No.1142/2019 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition challenging the grant of sanction by respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 19 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988') and Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), for prosecution of the petitioner/appellant herein.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ appeal are that petitioner / appellant is a retired employee of the State Government. When the petitioner/appellant was posted as Executive Engineer in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, crime bearing No.42/1996 was registered by the State Economic Offences Wing / Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhopal (MP) against him and other employees of the department for commission of offence under Ss. 13 (1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 and Sec. 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Since for prosecution of a public servant, valid sanction is required, respondent No.3 sought for sanction from respondent No.1 under Sec. 19 (1) (b) of the Act of 1988 and Sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C., for prosecution of appellant and others. Respondent No.1 granted sanction for prosecution of appellant and others vide order dtd. 15/5/2019. Aggrieved therewith appellant approached the High Court by filing writ petition bearing WP (Cr) No.1142/2019 on the grounds that proceedings of sanction are after inordinate delay as incident alleged therein had taken place about more than two decades back. The parent department of appellant i.e. respondent No.3, was not in concurrence to grant sanction and therefore, respondent No.1 ought not to have granted sanction in view of Circular dtd. 21/4/1997 (Annexure P-3) and the matter ought to have been referred for administrative sanction to the Ministry or Committee constituted in this regard. Procedure laid down for granting sanction was not followed.

(3.) Respondent State submitted its reply to writ petition denying the grounds urged therein and pleaded that proceedings initiated for grant of sanction to prosecute appellant are in accordance with law. Vide Circular dtd. 30/5/2003 (Annexure R-2) issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, the in-charge Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs has been authorized and made competent to accord sanction for prosecution under Sec. 19 (1) (b) of the Act of 1988 and Sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. against the officers / employees of the State Government, other than officers belonging to cadre of IAS, IPS, IFS and the officers of the State Administrative Services working in the pay-scale equivalent to or higher than the Secretary of State Government. The EOW/ACB vide letter dtd. 11/3/2019 requested respondent No.1 to accord sanction for prosecution of appellant and other public servants, which was received in the office of respondent No.1 on 13/3/2019. Respondent No.1 (department of appellant) wrote letter to respondent No.3 on 22/3/2019 followed by reminder dtd. 24/9/2019 seeking opinion / consent/ disagreement of the Administrative Department on sanction. This letter was not responded and thereafter on 15/5/2019 respondent No.1 passed the order granting sanction for prosecution of appellant.