RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMRIK Singh son of Arur Singh is the Headmaster, Government High School, Bhullar, District Gurdaspur. A theft of some articles took place in the school premises and Ram Lal Chowkidar was held responsible in respect of the aforesaid loss. The value of the lost articles was assessed at Rs. 700/ - which the aforesaid Ram Lal was liable to pay as compensation. However, Ram Lal it appears changed his mind and managed to get Amrik Singh, Headmaster implicated in a case under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as if he was passing on the aforesaid Headmaster. It shall be useful to refer to the relevant part of the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Vigilance Department, Punjab Chandigarh dated 3.9.1992 which is as under : - "The petitioner handed over the said amount worth Rs. 700/ - to the Headmaster and simultaneously arranged a false raid on him through the Vigilance Department by making false statement that the Headmaster has taken said amount as a bribe from him. Accordingly FIR No. 223/90 P.S. Batala was registered by Vigilance's Staff against Shri Amrik Singh Headmaster. The matter was examined by the Government and it was found that the Headmaster has not taken the said amount as bribe. It was recovered by the Headmaster from the petitioner as a loss caused to the school in view of the decision taken by the village Panchayat on 7.8.1990. Therefore after examining the whole issue it was decided by the Government to file cancellation report in the trial Court which has been admitted by the Hon'ble Special Judge, Gurdaspur on 4.1.1992."

(2.) IT appears that when the matter of sanction came before the State Government and the version of the Headmaster was taken into consideration, the conclusion arrived at was that Ram Lal Chowkidar had admitted his negligence in the presence of the Panchayat of the village on 7.8.1990 and he offered to compensate the loss caused to the school on account of theft on the intervening night of 4/5.8.1990 and proposed to pay Rs. 700/ - as a kind of compensation from his own emoluments. This was the reason that the pay of this chowkidar was not disbursed in time and not that the Headmaster demanded any bribe much less accepted it from the chowkidar of his own school. The State Government also reached the conclusion that the chowkidar should be prosecuted under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P -3/T). This proposal was affirmed at the level of the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Vigilance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh as contained in the communication dated 13.11.1991 (Annexure P -4/T). It was in these circumstances at the sanction for proceedings which arose out of the FIR in question were dropped by the Special Judge, Gurdaspur on 4.1.1992.

(3.) IN Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677. It was observed that the grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but at solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the Public servant concerned. Similarly in the case now in the hand the State Government was never satisfied that it was a fit case for launching prosecution against the Headmaster.