NARESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER HYDEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the sanction order dated 1.3.1982 given by the Chief Engineer (Hydel), Lucknow and the suspension order, and for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case - State v. Lallu and Anr. under Sections 161, 162, 120B IPC and Sec 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The petitioner has superannuated as an employee of the U.P. Power Corporation. In the year 1979, when the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at 33/11 K.V. Hydel Sub Station, Bilaspur, District Rampur, a trap was laid by the police on the complaint of Sri Azhar Ali Khan on 16.5.1979, to apprehend him for taking bribe. The petitioner was caught red handed accepting Rs. 70/- as bribe at about 12.40 PM by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rampur accompanying the complainant, for preparing an estimate for electricity connection. An FIR was lodged on 17.5.1979 and was registered as Crime Case No. 198 under Sections 161, 162, 120B IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle-II, Moradabad on 20.8.1979. The Superintendent of Police, Rampur requested for sanction, to prosecute the petitioner on which the Chief Engineer, (Hydel), U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow refused to give sanction by his letter dated 19.4.1980 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, on the ground that he has perused the original papers and the Hydel Case Diary, on examination of which he has found that the trap case against Sri Naresh Chandra Gupta has not succeeded legally, as the investigating officer of the police in his case diary has clearly mentioned that there are some defects in the case diary, which are not likely to be rectified, and that the accused can take advantage of these defects in the proceedings of the case, and thus a prima facie case is not made out against the Junior Engineer for which no question of giving sanction to prosecute him arises. The then Superintending Engineer, who had placed the petitioner under suspension on 20.8.1979, reinstated him on 24.5.1980 with full benefits of pay and allowances, and treated the period of his suspension to have been spent on duty.

(3.) The Superintendent of Police, Rampur by his letter dated 17.11.1980 again requested for sanction, to prosecute the petitioner under Section 6 of the Prevent of Corruption Act 1947. The Chief Engineer (Hydel), staying at Lucknow again considered the matter for grant of sanction. He examined the original complaint, supurdaginama note, fard baramdagi note, and first information report, evidences collected during investigation and case diary, and granted sanction under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 1.3.1982, to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner was again placed under suspension by the Superintending Engineer, giving rise to this writ petition.