STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. HARI CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That a bare perusal of the proviso I to Section 95 shows that the requisite permission under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, could be given by the authority who was competent to reduce the respondent in rank, or to compulsorily retire remove or dismiss him from service but such an authority shall not be subordinate in rank to the authority who appointed him. It is a mandatory statutory restriction. It is trite saying that the provisions which prescribe the circumstances under which the employer is entitled to terminate the services of an employee are conditions of service.

(2.) Further that the mere fact that an authority lower in rank to the authority who appointed the respondent was also competent to order the appointment of the respondent is of no consequence.

(3.) Further that the Respondent employee who was holding permanently the Post of a Lower Division Clerk on which he had lien and according to proviso I to Section 95(1) he could not be reduced in rank, compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appoined. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that Commissioner is an Officer subordinate to the Corporation. He, therefore, was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the respondent.