Sanction to prosecute Government Servant-Sanctioning Authority not quasi-judicial and no reasoned judgement required - Bombay HC
THIS was a writ petition filed by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax against sanction of prosecution against him by the Central Government.
It started somewhere in 2005 when the CBI filed a case against the Additional Commissioner for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of 1.27 Crores accumulated during the period 1993 to 2004. The wheels of Government moved slowly and in October 2012, the Government had finally accorded sanction to prosecute the Additional Commissioner. It is against this sanction that the Additional Commissioner is before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court in a detailed order running into 44 pages declined to allow the petition. The High Court observed,
A bare perusal of Section 19 and these conclusions of the Honourable Supreme Court leave us in no manner of doubt that at the stage of grant of sanction, the Sanctioning Authority does not exercise any quasijudicial power nor does it perform any quasijudicial function. The Sanctioning Authority is not obliged to grant any personal hearing to persons like the Petitioner. Its duty is to record a prima facie satisfaction and after perusal of the relevant material. It is not expected to deliver a reasoned judgment. It is not empowered to consider whether the evidence collected would prove the guilt. Once the Sanctioning Authority is competent to remove a public servant and it fully and carefully examines the material placed before it and having regard to the same, considers the matter as fit for grant of sanction, then, its order is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This Court cannot sit in judgment over such prima facie views and conclusions of the Sanctioning Authority. Once the opinion is based on relevant and germane considerations and materials, then, such prima facie opinion cannot be interfered with on the ground of any error or irregularity or omission therein. This is the mandate flowing from subsections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The request for continuation of the stay for enabling the petitioner to appeal to the higher court was also not considered.
The Additional Commissioner has filed an SLP in the Supreme Court.