AJAY KUMAR PANDA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dtd. 16/2/2022 passed by the Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur, Chhattisgarh whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 19 (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as AFO in the South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division. He was charged that he has accepted the bribe from the contractor and trapped by the CBI. A charge sheet was filed under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Act. A sanction for prosecution was issued by the Joint Secretary (E) II of the Railway Board vide letter dtd. 9/11/2016 and the order of removal from service was passed by the Director/E(O) I, Railway Board, vide order dtd. 29/6/2020. The petitioner has moved an application under Sec. 19 (4) of the Act and has raised an objection that the sanction was not issued by the competent authority. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) Shri Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, 2018, clause 312.14, sanction for prosecution of Group-B Officers is within the competence of the concerned Board Member. In the instant case, sanction was accorded by (PW-1) B. Majumdar, who was posted as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board and was not a competent person to accord sanction. Therefore, the sanction is bad in law. He further submits that during examination of (PW-1) B. Majumdar, the prosecution has not filed any document which shows that (PW-1) B. Majumdar was duly authorized to issue sanction order. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agrawal {(2014) 14 SCC 295} he submits that the said issue can be raised at any stage during trial. He finally submits that the impugned sanction order was not accorded after due application of mind and material documents were not considered, and that (PW-1) B. Majumdar was also not competent to remove the petitioner from service. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable and the matter may be relegated back to the State where the authorities can obtain fresh sanction.