S S TYAIGI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this case is whether the order of the learned Special Judge dated 23.3.1994 and framing of charge dated 8.8.1994 can be sustained in the eyes of law. Mr.Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent-CBI filed a charge-sheet under Section 120-B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, I.K.Sharma IAS, L.K.Joshi IAS, D.P.Bahuguna and Prakash Chand Gupta.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that as per the impugned order, the petitioner was appointed as 'Tehsildar' under Section 4(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as " Act") and as such sanction of his prosecution was to be given by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Authority") and not by the Chairman of the Authority. Mr.Talwar has contended that Chairman at the first instance is not the authority as contemplated under the Schedule of the Act and also submitted that in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 57 of the Act the Authority made rules with the approval of the Central Government called the 'Delhi Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961' and according to that Regulations and Schedule of the Act, the petitioner would fall in Class-II category of posts and for Class-II category of posts, it is the authority which is empowered to appoint such class of officers as per the Schedule. Mr.Talwar has further contended that Vice-Chairman of the Authority is empowered as per the said Schedule to impose minor penalties on the said category of Class-II Officers and for all major penalties it is the Authority and none else who can impose penalties. What Mr.Talwar has contended is that according sanction for prosecution is a major penalty and it ought to have been accorded by the Authority in this case. No sanction accorded by the Chairman of the Authority in the absence of any resolution of the Authority is without the sanction of law and illegal and on this ground alone he has argued that the impugned order is bad in law and should be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Lal, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI, has vehemently contended that the Chairman of the Authority has got power to grant sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. Mr.Lal has contended that the Chairman is an authority as defined under sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act. What Mr.Lal has tried to convass before me is to read in sub-section 3 to hold that the Chairman is an authority to exercise the power independently by virtue of being the Chairman of the Authority. Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act is as under |-