Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 358 (KAR)

T. SRIJNIVASAN v. STATE BY CBI/SPE, BANGALOREVV

2004-06-15

S.B.MAJAGE

body2004
S. B. MAJAGE, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , the petitioner, who is accused in Special Case No. 7 of 1989 on he file of the Court of xxi Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore City, has requested to quash the proceedings in said case. After notice, the respondent appeared through its learned standing Counsel. So, heard both sides and perused the records. ( 2 ) THE only ground urged for the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings is that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner-accused is not valid since, according to him, the authority, which has given sanction for his prosecution, is not the Competent Authority, as could be seen from the statement of P. W. 1-Dr. Sheela, who has given sanction. However, it was submitted for the respondent that the sanction given does not suffer from any infirmity and the statement of P. W. 1 does not help the petitioner-accused in any way to hold that the sanction is invalid. ( 3 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are: The petitioner was previously working in the Postal and Telegraph Department upto february 1976 and in the month of February 1976, he got opted and absorbed in the C. G. H. S. Unit coming under the Union Ministry of health and Family Welfare, which is a regular department and thereafter, he was holding the post of Pharmacist in C. G. H. S. (Central government Health Scheme) at Bangalore and working as such during the relevant period between 1-4-1982 to 24-2-1983, in which period the offences were alleged to have been committed by him and the sanction for his prosecution was given by the Deputy Director, C. G. H. S. i. e. , Dr. Sheela-P. W. 1, who was working in that capacity then. Sheela-P. W. 1, who was working in that capacity then. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner-accused was working as storekeeper, central Stores in C. G. H. S. at Jayanagar in the year 1988 and the said post was designated as Pharmacist coming in Group 'c' posts and, that the appointing authority in respect of the post held by the petitioner was the Director, Telecommunications when he was working in P and T department upto February 1976 and, that the post of Director of telecommunications is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director in c. G. H. S. , having same scale of pay i. e. , Rs. 3,700. /- to Rs. 5,000/- at the relevant time. Further, as per the schedule of powers, the Deputy director in C. G. H. S. , Bangalore, was the Head of office vested with the authority of appointment as well as removal or dismissal of an employee, who held Group 'c' post. ( 4 ) IN spite of said facts, which have come in the evidence of P. W. 1- sheela and remained undisputed, it was vehemently contended for the petitioner that the sanction given by P. W. 1-Dr. Sheela as Deputy director in C. G. H. S. cannot be said to be valid in law as, admittedly, the petitioner-accused was appointed by the Director of Telecommunications in P and T Department when he was appointed and working in P and T department upto the year 1976 and it has been admitted by P. W. l-Sheela that irrespective of emoluments and departments working under the central Government, the post of a Director is always superior in rank to the post of Deputy Director and, that rankwise, Postmaster General holds higher rank as the Head of Department than the rank, which she was occupying as Deputy Director in C. G. H. S. as Head of the office. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that after the absorption of the petitioner-accused in February 1976 in C. G. H. S. , he ceased to have any link/lien or connection with his earlier department or post held by him in that department. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that after the absorption of the petitioner-accused in February 1976 in C. G. H. S. , he ceased to have any link/lien or connection with his earlier department or post held by him in that department. Neither was there any suggestion nor anything brought on record to show/say that in spite of his absorption in C. G. H. S. in the month of February 1976, the petitioner-accused still continued to have link/lien with that department in any manner. So, placing reliance on the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of School education and Another v AN. Kandaswamy and Another , the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the petitioner-accused had exercised his option and absorbed in C. G. H. S. , his link with his earlier department namely, P and T Department had snapped. ( 6 ) I find considerable force in the said argument advanced for the respondent that after the petitioner opted and then absorbed in c. G. H. S. Unit of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, his relations with the earlier department (P and T Department) had come to an end in February 1976. ( 7 ) SIMPLY because P. W. 1 has stated that she does not remember now whether the petitioner-accused was appointed by the Postmaster general or by the Director of Telecommunications of P and T department and that on the date of appointment of the petitioner-accused, whether there was a post designated as Director, telecommunications in P and T Department, it cannot be said that the sanction accorded by P. W. 1 suffers from any infirmity as, admittedly, for the post held by the petitioner-accused on absorption in C. G. H. S. was group *c' post, to which post, P. W. 1-Dr. Sheela as Deputy Director in c. GH. S. was the Competent Authority to appoint and remove. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, it may not be out of place to note that neither it is the case of the petitioner-accused nor any record or material was placed before the Court showing that he was appointed by Postmaster General and not by the Director in Telecommunications Department when he` was appointed initially. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, it may not be out of place to note that neither it is the case of the petitioner-accused nor any record or material was placed before the Court showing that he was appointed by Postmaster General and not by the Director in Telecommunications Department when he` was appointed initially. So, simply because P. W. 1 has admitted that rankwise the Postmaster General holds higher rank as Head of the department than the rank, which P. W. 1, as Deputy Director in c. G. H. S. was holding as Head of office, the petitioner-accused cannot derive any benefit to challenge the sanction. ( 9 ) FURTHER, it is not the case of the petitioner-accused that the Deputy director in C. G. H. S. was not the Competent Authority to remove him when he was working as Pharmacist i. e. , storekeeper in Central Stores at Bangalore, a Group 'c' post. If the petitioner-accused had shown or contended or suggested that for the Group 'c' post held by him, the deputy Director in C. G. H. S. was not the appointing or removing authority, the matter would have been different, but not now. ( 10 ) IN the case of Shivendra Kumar v State of Maharashtra , the supreme Court held that even if stated in cross-examination by witness that he is not the Competent Authority to remove an accused, unless specific material is produced to show that some other officer was competent to deal with the matter of sanction for prosecution against the accused, it can be reasonably presumed that the Secretary of the department is the Competent Authority to pass the order of sanction and held in that case that the sanction accorded did not suffer from any infirmity when kept in mind the provision contained in Section 6 of the prevention of Corruption Act. In the present matter, even there is no such admission made by P. W. 1-Dr. Sheela to the effect that she was not the Competent Authority to remove the petitioner-accused from service. On the other hand, it is otherwise. So, I do not find any force in the contention raised for the petitioner-accused questioning the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner-accused. In the result, the petitioner is rejected. --- *** --- .