MANMOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having been selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment as Deputy Collector gave his joining on the said post on 11-3-1993 in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Having joined in the State of Jharkhand, he was posted as Block Development Department, Churchu Block in the month of July, 2006. While the petitioner was posted there, a work for construction of a well over the land of one Tapas Soren was sanctioned under the scheme of NAREGA and even the amount was released. Thereafter the Block officials in order to extort money put the said Tapas Soren to harassment to such an extent that he made an attempt to commit suicide. When this matter came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, he reported the matter to the Government and made recommendation for the suspension of the petitioner and also for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against this petitioner. The Government considering the seriousness of the allegation, suspended the petitioner. Meanwhile, Tapas Soren succumbed to his burn injuries. Thereupon, wife of the deceased lodged a case before the Mandu Police Station alleging therein that when the amount was sanctioned for digging a well in her husband's field, Panchayat Sewak started putting demand of money for himself and also for the Block Development Officer (petitioner) and in order to get the demand fulfilled, her husband was put to harassment to the extent that her husband committed suicide. On the said information Mandu P.S. Case No. 251 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 409, 420, 384, 120-B and 306/511 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against this petitioner and other accused persons. In course of investigation, when the culpability of this petitioner was found in the alleged offence, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to have sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the Government. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote to the concerned department for grant of sanction. Upon it when the materials were placed before the department, the matter was referred to Law (Justice) Department in terms of the provision as contained under Rule 53(c) of the Rules of Executive Business for grant of sanction. Accordingly, under the said Rule, the Department of Law (Justice) granted sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, vide its order dated 6-2-2009 (Annexure 2) after its approval by the State Government.

(2.) The said order of sanction (Annexure 2) issued by Law (Justice) Department has been sought to be quashed through this writ application.

(3.) Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in order to assail the order granting sanction submitted that the petitioner being posted as Block Development Officer was under the control of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department and as such, the Secretary of the said Department being an Appointing Authority would be competent to issue order of sanction for prosecution, but surprisingly, the order of sanction has been granted by the Department of Law (Justice) which never happens to be the controlling department of the petitioner and as such, the order granting sanction is never in consonance of the provision as contained in Sec. 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the order of sanction as contained in Annexure 2 can never be said to have been granted by an authorised person and as such, it would be a nullity and hence, it is fit to be quashed.