N S SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition baa been filed by Sri N. S. Subramaniam, the accused in C. C. 18 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Special Judge, Madras against the order of the learned Special Judge overruling his preliminary objection that the Court bad no jurisdiction to take cognisance 'of the offence alleged against the accused without the requisite sanction prescribed under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947 ). The charge against him was that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7,861. 80 between December 1963 and October 1964 from out of the collections made by him as the manager of the Central Government Tourist Bungalow at Madurai, an offence tinder Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) of the Act. He bad been appointed as the Manager by order dated 8-4-1968, by the Director, Government of India Tourist office, Madras. He was relieved of the post on 30-9-1964. Thereafter leave was granted to him upto 15-3-1965. The charge sheet was filed against him on 28-8-1966. He took the preliminary objection mentioned above on 24-10-1966 Section 6 states that no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sub section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Actually, an order wag issued on 24. 10. 1966 that his services stood terminated. But, according to the order, they stood terminated with effect from 15. 51965 under R. 5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules, 1965, in consequence of his communication dated 14-4-1965. The rule will be referred to presently and at this stage, it is sufficient to state that the said communication of 24/25-10-1966 proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had been appointed only temporarily and that under the rules governing such temporary employees it was open to the petitioner to terminate his services under the Government by giving a month's notice, that his communication dated 14-4-1965 amounted to such notice, and that consequently his service became terminated on 15-5. 1965. The above order was served on the petitioner only on 21-11-1966.

(2.) THE petitioner's objection before the learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that till the above communication was served on him on 21. 11. 1966, he continued in the service of the Government, and that accordingly sanction was required under Section 6 to the Act. The reply of the prosecution to this objection is that the petitioner had ceased to be in Government service with effect from 15-5-1965 and that since the charge sheet was filed only on 28-8-1966 when he was not a public servant, sanction was not required. The decision in Ram Dhyan Singh v. State , shows that if on 28 8. 1866, the petitioner was not in Government employ, sanction was not necessary. That proposition is not disputed by the petitioner; but his contention is that he continued to be in the employment of Government till 21-111966.

(3.) THE learned Judge overruled the objection of the petitioner accepting the contention of the prosecution on the ground mentioned above. Another ground was also relied on by the learned Special Judge and it was that even apart from the termination of the ser-vices brought about by the notice given by the petitioner on 14-4. 1965, he must be deem-ed to have ceased to be a Government employee with effect from 16-3-1965 by virtue of Rule 14 (c) of the revised Leave Rules 1933, of the Government of India, because he had not rejoined duty on the expiry of the extraordinary leave granted to him till 15-81965.