Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1074 (PNJ)

Sanjay Bhatia v. State Of Haryana

2002-10-16

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The petitioner was declared successful in the All India Civil Services Examination conducted in the year 1985 and he was allotted Indian Police Service (I.P.S.). He was allocated to the State of Haryana as his cadre. He was posted as Superintendent of Police (Commando) at Karnal, where he remained posted till November 10, 1992. While he was posted as S.P. (Commando) at Karnal, a raid was conducted at his residence, pursuant to which F.I.R. No. 585/92 was registered against him on November 7, 1992 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations as per the F.I.R. were that he had received bribe for appointment of Commandos. It is further the allegation that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was found from the residence of the petitioner. After the F.I.R. was registered, sanction was obtained from the State of Haryana vide order dated June 22, 1993 (Annexure P6). In pursuance of the sanction having been granted by the State of Haryana, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., was submitted before the Judge, Special Court, Karnal, who charged the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vide order dated November 8, 1994 (Annexure P9). 2. The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P9), vide which he was ordered to be charge-sheeted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and face trial thereunder. 3. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an I.P.S. Officer by the Central Government and, therefore, it was the Central Government only, which was competent to grant sanction for prosecution and not the State Government. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed on record letter of his appointment (Annexure P7), which shows that the petitioner was an appointee of the Central Government. Mr. K.D. Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a person, who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union of India and not removable by any other authority, except the Central Government, then only the Central Government can grant sanction and not any other authority. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reproduced as under :- "19. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reproduced as under :- "19. Previous Sanction Necessary for Prosecution : (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, - (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed." 4. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed by the Central Government as an Officer of the Indian Police Service and was allocated to the State of Haryana. The power to grant sanction in view of the provisions to Section 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could only be given by the Central Government as it was the Central Government which was the appointing and removing authority of the petitioner. 5. It has further been argued by Mr. Hooda that under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, no person, who is a member of the Civil Services of the Union or of All India Service of the Union can be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to the one appointing him. Since in the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the Central Government and his removal could also be ordered by the Central Government, the State Government could not grant sanction in the case of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has submitted that a persual of Section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if a person may have been appointed by the Central Government, but the sanction to prosecute can be granted by the State Government. It has further been contended by Mr. 6. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has submitted that a persual of Section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if a person may have been appointed by the Central Government, but the sanction to prosecute can be granted by the State Government. It has further been contended by Mr. Nehra that the State Government is competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner though it has no power to order the removal of the petitioner from his service. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A persual of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act clearly shows that it was only the Central Government which was competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of a person who was appointed in service by the Central Government. In the case of the petitioner, he was an officer of the Indian Police Service. His appointment and removal were in the control of the Central Government. In the case of his removal, the State Government could only recommend his removal to the Central Government but could not terminate his services. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is absolutely specific with regard to the sanction to be granted by the State Government with regard to the services belonging to the Central Government. Thus, in my view, the sanction granted by the State Government for prosecuting the petitioner was wholly illegal. It has been held in Gulab Tulsyani v. Delhi Administration through Lt. Governor and anr., 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 323, wherein it has been held that the authority competent to remove the Government servant is competent to accord sanction. 8. In view of the above, I quash the order (Annexure P6) vide which the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the State Government as also the order dated November 8, 1994 (Annexure P9) vide which the Special Court, Karnal, had taken cognizance of the evidence against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the State Government or the Investigating Agency could seek sanction from the Central Government for prosecuting the petitioner. 9. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.