Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 497 (PAT)

Rajmangal Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-03-23

VIKASH JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Vikash Jain, J.-The present writ application has been filed for quashing the sanction order, as contained in Memo No. 4201 dated 11.11.2006 by which sanction against the petitioner has been accorded by the Law Department to the Vigilance Department to proceed with criminal case lodged as Vigilance Case No. 52 of 2006 dated 13.09.2006. 2. It appears that on 13.09.2006, the said Vigilance Case No. 52/2006 came to be instituted against the petitioner who was the District Transport Officer (D.T.O.) Motihari at the relevant time, at the instance of one Harendra Singh, for alleged favours shown in the matter of release of Truck bearing No. UP78N2699 detained for overloading and for moving without road permit, against payment of bribe of Rs.21,000/- to the petitioner. 3. It further transpires that the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department and thereafter suspended on 11.11.2006 in terms of Rule 9 (i)(c) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control an Appeal) Rules, 2005. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that as a matter of fact the amount of Rs. 21,000/- was the estimated amount of fine which the informant was liable to pay for violation of rules. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised the challenge against the maintainability of the vigilance case on the basis of the sanction order which has been issued by the Law Department and not by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms being the controlling department of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the appointing administrative authority alone is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation against the background of their own intimate knowledge of the work and conduct of a public servant in the overall administrative interest of the State, whereas in the present case the sanction order has been granted by the Law Department which was wholly unauthorized to do so. It has further been submitted that the vigilance case cannot be continued in the absence of a valid sanction order issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which is a prerequisite. 6. It has further been submitted that the vigilance case cannot be continued in the absence of a valid sanction order issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which is a prerequisite. 6. It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the alternative even if it be assumed though not admitted that the sanction order issued by the Law Department were valid, in any event the sanction order as issued (Annexure-4) is not sustainable in law having been issued mechanically and without due application of mind. In this regard he points out that even though the sanction order is said to have been issued by the Law Department on 11.11.2006 after perusal of the Personnel Department's File No. 2/ABHI-310/06 and the documents contained therein, it will be evident from the Letter No. 9072 dated 06.09.2007 (Annexure-B) issued by the Personnel Department to the Vigilance Department that the relevant documents were in fact still lying with the Vigilance Department till as late as in September, 2007. By the said letter, the Personnel Department had requested the Vigilance Department to send the concerned file to the Personnel Department as charges had to be framed against the petitioner in course of departmental proceeding. 7. In this background, therefore, it has been submitted that the documents which were required in connection with framing of charges in departmental proceedings would naturally have a direct bearing and would be crucial in the matter of issuance of a valid sanction order. However, at the time when the sanction order was issued on 11.11.2006, the Law Department could not possibly have perused all the relevant documents, as these had been requested for by the Personnel Department itself from the Vigilance Department subsequently on 06.09.2007. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had been arrested by a Vigilance Trap Team while he was caught red-handed taking Rs.21.000/- from the Truck driver as bribe money for release of Truck. 9. As regards the issue relating to the validity of the sanction order, a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, wherein the sanction order as issued by the Law Department is sought to be justified as being valid and entirely in accordance with Rules. 9. As regards the issue relating to the validity of the sanction order, a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, wherein the sanction order as issued by the Law Department is sought to be justified as being valid and entirely in accordance with Rules. It has been stated that the Vigilance Bureau had lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner and sought sanction of the General Administration Department for his prosecution. The General Administration Department examined the material which was made available by the Vigilance Bureau and sent the same to the Law Department being the competent authority for sanction of prosecution under the Rules of Executive Business. The Law Department duly examined the matter and sanctioned the prosecution against the petitioner. It has therefore been submitted that the sanction order as issued by the Law Department is in accordance with law and legally valid. 10. The issue of the validity of the sanction order issued by the Law Department rather than by the Parent Department has already been considered in an earlier decision in similar circumstances in Cr. Misc. No. 18584 of 2010, Dr. Vikash Chandra Kumar v. State of Bihar, which in turn relied upon an earlier decision of this Court rendered in Cr. Misc. No. 44151 of 2008, Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar. After considering the provisions of the Rules of Executive Business, this Court duly concluded that the sanction order issued by the Law Department rather than by the Parent Department could not be termed as valid. 11. In the above view of the matter, therefore, the issue is no longer res integra and there is no reason to differ with the view already taken in the aforesaid two cases. 12. Even otherwise, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanction order even as issued by the Law Department in the absence of all relevant and material documents is infirm, having been issued mechanically and without due application of mind. This aspect of the matter has not been repudiated nor countered by the respondents. 13. In the above circumstances, therefore, the sanction order as contained in Memo No. 4201 dated 11.11.2006 issued by the Law Department for prosecution of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 14. This aspect of the matter has not been repudiated nor countered by the respondents. 13. In the above circumstances, therefore, the sanction order as contained in Memo No. 4201 dated 11.11.2006 issued by the Law Department for prosecution of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 14. It is however made clear that the competent authority to issue a valid sanction order shall be at liberty to take action in the matter in future, if so advised and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit the exercise of such power in accordance with law. Order accordingly.