9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the order of sanction for prosecution given by the Chief Minister. Analysis: The appellant, an Executive Engineer, was alleged to have caused an excess payment of Rs. 2,750 to a contractor due to non-performance of duty as per rules. The State contended that the failure to discharge duty was the crux of the charge, not the excess payment. However, the document itself indicated that the Executive Engineer's failure led to the excess payment. According to the Rules of Business, cases involving defalcation over Rs. 10,000 must be presented to the Chief Minister. In this case, the matter was initially presented to the Law Minister who refused sanction. The Chief Minister sanctioned prosecution in 1997 after the appellant's retirement in 1994. The appellant challenged the legality of this order, arguing that no new evidence was presented, and the previous authority had already considered and rejected prosecution. The State claimed the matter had not been referred to the Chief Minister before, justifying the subsequent order. However, upon review of the file, it was found that no fresh evidence was collected, and the Law Minister had appropriately dealt with the matter previously. The Court observed that there was no fresh material collected between the initial refusal to sanction and the subsequent order in 1997. The loss to the exchequer was only Rs. 2,750, falling under the Law Minister's jurisdiction as per the Rules of Business. Pursuing prosecution against a retired individual for such a minimal loss was deemed unreasonable. The Court concluded that there was no need to involve the Chief Minister, and the subsequent order lacked proper consideration. Therefore, the impugned order of sanction by the Chief Minister was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
