VIJAY KUMAR JANJUA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an IAS Officer, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner, who appears in person, submitted that he is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. In terms of Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (for short, 'the 1954 Rules'), all the recruitments are to be made by the Central Government. In terms of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the 1969 Rules'), penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement can be imposed only by an order passed by the Central Government. Section 19(1)(c) of the Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act allegedly committed by a public servant, except with the prior sanction of the authority competent to remove him from the office. As in the present case, the competent authority to remove the petitioner from service is the Central Government, sanction for prosecution, as granted by the Governor of Punjab, is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed upon Sanjay Bhatia v. State of Haryana, 2002 4 RCR(Cri) 761 and Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, 2006 3 AICLR 504(Ker.). He had further referred to the sanction granted in the cases of other IAS officers serving in the State of Punjab by the Government of India.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is in service with the State Government since 21.8.1989. On 9.11.2009, he was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/-. FIR No. 9 dated 9.11.2009 was registered under the Act. On 13.11.2009, he was removed from the office of Director, Industries, Punjab. Section 19(1)(a) of the Act refers to the authority which is competent to remove an employee from the office, which means the posting and not the service. As the State is competent to remove the petitioner from the office, it is competent even to grant sanction. Reliance was placed upon Balakrishnan Ravi Menon v. Union of India, 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 956. He further submitted that Rule 6 of the 1969 Rules refers to major penalties, one of which is removal from service. Rule 7(1)(b) of the 1969 Rules provides that where an officer is serving with the State, then the State is competent to grant sanction.

(3.) The stand of Union of India is that in terms of the circular dated 27.10.1999, as only the Central Government can remove an IAS officer from service, it is competent to grant sanction. Removal from office means no longer in service.