Reviewing or reconsidering of the earlier order
refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant is possible in a case
where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent
to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority.
In
this case, the petitioner, a public servant, while working as Deputy Electrical
Inspector, was trapped by the Lokayukta Police, on 18.12.2010, while allegedly
taking bribe money of Rs. 18,000/- from the 4th respondent, an
electrical contractor. Upon completion of investigation, to prosecute the
petitioner, sanction was sought, under S.19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) from respondent No. 1. Government of Karnataka,
on the basis of the material placed by the Investigating Agency and on
examination of the case, found no justification to grant the sanction. By order
dated 28.03.2013, sanction for prosecution of petitioner was rejected.
Additional
Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, furnished clarification with
reference to the said order of rejection and requested the 1st
respondent to reconsider its decision and accord sanction. Government of
Karnataka having reconsidered the matter and accorded sanction for prosecution
of the petitioner, vide Government Order dated 03.07.2014, as at Annexure – A,
this case was filed to quash the said order.
The
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Shri
L. Megha Naik Vs. State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary to the
Government, Energy Department, Bengaluru and others, followed the
proposition law laid down in the case of Nishant
Sareen. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that if the respondent had
any grievances against the first order, refusing to grant sanction, ought to
have challenged the said order. The said order having been allowed to become
final and the power of sanctioning authority being not of continuing character
i.e., in the absence of any other fresh material, could not be exercised, the case/writ
petition filed by the petitioner was allowed.
Prepared
by: S. Hemanth
Advocate
at Hemanth
& Associates
