Sanction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Not Needed After Public Servant Retires Or Demits Office: J&K&L High Court

Holding that the statutory protection of prior sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption law is available only so long as a public servant remains in service, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that no sanction is required once the official has demitted office or retired.Justice Sanjay Dhar made this clear while dismissing a petition challenging corruption proceedings, observing that “protection under Section 19 of the PC Act, which is pari-materia with Section 6 of the J&K PC Act, is available to a public servant only till he is in employment and no sanction thereunder is necessary after the public servant has demitted office or has retired from service.” The Court was dealing with a petition filed by one Ghulam Rasool Baba, who had invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail the criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered with the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir. The proceedings were pending before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, in relation to alleged large-scale financial irregularities committed during the petitioner's tenure as Accounts Officer in the office of the Director, Health Services, Kashmir. In the FIR for offences under Section 5(1)(c)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 409 RPC the allegations were that while posted as Block Medical Officers at Beerwa, several doctors, in connivance with ministerial staff and treasury officials, had misappropriated government funds. Upon investigation, the Vigilance Organisation found the allegations substantiated and filed a charge sheet against multiple accused, including the present petitioner. Insofar as Ghulam Rasool Baba was concerned, the investigation revealed that he had facilitated illegal and fraudulent drawal of Leave Travel Concession amounting to ₹6,99,880 from the State Treasury, by abusing his official position and manipulating records in favour of officials of the BMO Office. Based on this material, the trial court framed charges recording a prima facie finding that the petitioner had facilitated illegal LTC drawals by manipulation of records and without competence. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner contended that he had no role in the preparation or passing of adjustment bills, which were completed at the block level, and that his implication was based on vague allegations. He further argued that the challan had been produced without obtaining sanction from the competent authority and that the trial had proceeded without due process. The petitioner also claimed prolonged delay in the trial, amounting to violation of his right to a speedy trial. Justice Dhar, after examining the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, rejected these contentions. The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were twofold: facilitating fraudulent LTC drawals and according sanctions without competence. These allegations, the Court observed, were “clearly supported by the material collected by the Investigation Agency.” A significant factor weighed by the Court was the statement of the then Director, Health Services, Kashmir, recorded during investigation. The Director had categorically stated that the petitioner, as Accounts Officer, had accorded sanctions for availing LTC in favour of 18 employees without approval and without competence, including cases where even the Director himself was not competent and sanction could have been granted only by the Government. The Director further stated that the petitioner had made insertions in records to grant approvals for additional employees and had even sanctioned LTC in favour of an employee on consolidated wages who was not entitled to such benefit. In the face of this statement, the Court held that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner.On the issue of discharge, the Court held that although the petitioner's discharge application was not specifically mentioned in the order framing charges, his contentions had been heard and rejected, and therefore the application stood deemed dismissed. Dealing with the crucial argument relating to sanction for prosecution, Justice Dhar noted that the charge sheet had been filed after the petitioner had superannuated from service. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Station House Officer, CBI/ACB v. B.A. Srinivasan (2020) 2 SCC 153, the Court held that the statutory protection of sanction does not survive retirement, rendering the petitioner's objection meritless. As regards the plea of delay and violation of the right to speedy trial, the Court found that the delay was attributable to factors beyond the control of the trial court or the prosecution. The Court concluded that “it cannot be stated that the right to speedy trial of the petitioner has been impeded by any of the actions of the trial...

Sanction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Not Needed After Public Servant Retires Or Demits Office: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags