Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.@mdashCounsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The petitioner, who is holding the post of Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, State of Punjab has challenged in terms of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P-28) and 17.11.2006 (Annexure P-32), whereby, respondent No. 2 has granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The first submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while impugning the orders granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is that in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Investigating Agency is required to take sanction from the Competent Authority before prosecuting any government employee and in the case in hand, respondent No. 2 has not applied its mind independently prior to grant of sanction and as such, the impugned orders granting sanction can not be sustained. Towards advancing such submission, learned counsel would refer to the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency (Annexure P-27) and would submit that the language contained in the impugned orders granting sanction is verbatim the same as employed in the draft. Accordingly, counsel would submit that respondent No. 2 while granting sanction has only completed a formality and has signed the dotted line and there has been no independent application of mind as regards the material produced by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction for prosecution against the petitioner.
2. A perusal of the impugned sanction order would reveal that the Sanctioning Authority has adverted to all the necessary facts. It is upon examination of such material facts which were in the nature of documents attached along with the challan form pertaining to the case FIR as also perusing the statements of witnesses that the Sanctioning Authority had certified as regards its satisfaction that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offences concerned. The Sanctioning Authority has also certified that it is the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office. It would be useful to refer to the relevant extracts from the impugned order granting sanction and the same reads in the following terms:
With the challan form of this case FIR the document attached thereto and on perusing the statements of witnesses minutely and deeply, I am fully satisfied that Panchayat Secretary Devinder Singh Block Machhiwara District Ludhiana during the tenure of his posting at such, in Gram Panchayat Manewal by conniving with the DDPO Bhajan Singh, BDPO Baljit Singh, Panchayat Contract Amandeep Singh. Par-gat Singh, Madan Singh and Gurnam Singh, and with the 9 Contractors of Gurnam Singh minerals, out of the panchayat lands measuring 381 kanals 4 marlas by joining hands with his companions above mentioned accused by getting re moved/lifted sand from the Panchayat lands worth Rs. 3 crore with a bad intention, while performing his government duties and committing negligence therein intentionally and deliberately, by conniving with the co-accused have committed corruption at a very higher level and after causing financial loss to the Government (Gram Panchayat Manewal) have committed embezzlement and corruption and have prepared forged document. In this way Shri Devinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Machhiwara, at the very first sight, committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13-C(d) read with Section 13(2) 88 of the P.C. Act.
The challan file of this FIR, the documents attached with it and the statements of the witnesses have been minutely perused and thereafter, I am fully satisfied that Gram Panchayat, Manewal and Devinder Singh after conniving with each other, have committed an embezzlement/corruption, out of the Government grants received for the village Manewal had out of the other funds, to the tune of Rs. 2,53,215/-. In this manner, at the very first sight, they have committed offences under Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(1) C.D. read with Section 13(2) 88 of the P.C. Act.
3. From the impugned sanction orders, it would not be possible to conclude that the Competent Authority has not applied its mind prior to granting sanction. Merely because language of the impugned orders as also the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction were couched in identical terms can not made the basis of setting aside an order granting sanction.
4. Against the present scenario of rampant corruption in all spheres of life, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution. In the case of
Keeping those principles in mind, as we must, if we look at Section 19 of the PC Act which bars a court from taking cognizance of cases of corruption against a public servant under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act, unless the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, has accorded sanction, virtually imposes fetters on private citizens and also on prosecutors from approaching court against corrupt public servants. These protections are not available to other citizens. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to the provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that while performing his duties as Panchayat Secretary, Block Machhiwara, District Ludhiana in connivance with the DDPO Bhajan Singh, BDPO Baljit Singh as also certain other persons facilitated the removing/lifting of sand from the Panchayat land worth Rs. 3 crores. Still further, the allegation against the petitioner is that Gram Panchayat, Manewal as also the petitioner in connivance have embezzled out of government grants received for the village an amount to the extent of Rs. 2,53,215/-. Against the background of such serious allegations and which have duly been noticed by the Competent Sanctioning Authority, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has even referred to various provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as also the rules framed thereunder to contend that the Sanctioning Authority has overlooked the fact that the nature of powers and duties of the Panchayat Secretary as also other officials are clearly defined and the allegations as levelled in the FIR are merely an attempt to implicate a public servant in a false case. I am unable to accept such contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that the Competent Authority is required to form an opinion as to whether upon the material placed and relied by the Investigating Agency a prima facie commission of an offence is made out. At the stage of grant or refusal of sanction, the Competent Authority is not obliged to undertake a detailed enquiry and to go into the merits of the allegations made against the public servant concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that prior to passing of the impugned orders granting sanction for prosecution, no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner. Even such contention is wholly misplaced. It has been held in a catena of judgments that the grant of sanction for prosecution is an administrative function. As such, there would be no requirement for the public servant concerned to be heard by the Competent Authority before a decision in the matter is taken. Such aspect of an opportunity of hearing to be granted to a public servant in matters for grant of sanction was also considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra) and it has been held in the following terms:
We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the competent authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the competent authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the competent authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail of appropriate legal remedy.
For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any basis that would warrant interference in the impugned orders dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P-28) and dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure P-32) granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
