2016 (1) TMI 1396 - HC - Indian Laws

Discharge of Official duties - manifestation of how the career of an IRS Officer has been blighted by litigation between him on the one hand and the official respondents on the other - Whether the sanction order for prosecution dated 26.11.2002 is invalid and in violation of this Court s order in Writ Petition(Criminal) No.938/2001 instituted by the petitioner herein for non- production of relevant material as well as for want of due application of mind by the sanctioning authority? Maintainability of application - Held that - It is an established position of law that the court for its perusal and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties even if the same are in dispute and do not require the taking of oral evidence. Rather this is a matter of the discretion of the court and not a matter of jurisdiction - Thus the extent of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not confined to questions of law. This proposition is well established through a catena of decisions of the Apex Court noticeably in the landmark decision of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. 1970 (2) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court dismissing a petition in limine where relief was sought against the respondent in that case whose actions with regard to the Century. There are no disputed questions of facts. The reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 as well as the relevant Fax dated 13.01.19998 sent to Mr. Barjatya are conspicuous by their absence in the SP s Report dated 30.10.2001. It is not surprising that the order granting sanction also does not allude to either of the afore- mentioned relevant documents as it is a verbatim copy of the draft sanction order. This Court is not precluded from determining questions of fact under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India since the dispute arising in the present case can be very well be determined by looking at the official documents and material on record including the pleadings of the parties. Stage at which the validity of sanction can be determined - Held that - The legal position that emerges is that the question of validity of a sanction must be decided as soon as it is raised and cannot be postponed to a later stage of trial as an invalid sanction goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the court that has taken cognizance. Considering that the cognizance taken by the Special Judge CBI would be rendered non-est in light of section 19(1) of POCA the dispute on validity must be adjudicated at the earliest. The present petition is maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India - decided in favor of petitioner - in the interest of justice finality is given to these proceedings and it is directed that no further proceedings in relation to the subject sanction orders be initiated against the petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002.
2. Whether the relevant documents were placed before the sanctioning authority.
3. Whether there was due application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
4. Whether the investigation was conducted impartially and fairly.
5. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner were tainted with mala fides.
6. Maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sanction Orders:
The court scrutinized the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002, finding them invalid due to the absence of relevant documents being placed before the sanctioning authority. The orders were verbatim copies of draft sanction orders, indicating non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The court emphasized that for a valid sanction, the authority must be apprised of all relevant material and facts, which was not the case here.

2. Relevant Documents Not Placed Before the Sanctioning Authority:
The court noted that crucial documents, such as the reply to the Letter Rogatory (LR) dated 27.06.2001 and the relevant fax dated 13.01.1998, were not included in the SP's report sent to the sanctioning authority. These documents were pivotal as they established the genuineness of the fax in question, which was central to the allegations against the petitioner. The absence of these documents led to the conclusion that the sanctioning authority did not have the complete material to make an informed decision.

3. Due Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority:
The court highlighted that the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind to the facts and material before granting sanction. The verbatim adoption of the draft sanction order without considering the relevant documents demonstrated a lack of independent application of mind. This procedural lapse rendered the sanction orders invalid.

4. Impartiality and Fairness of the Investigation:
The investigation was found to be biased and influenced by external factors. The court observed that the investigation seemed to be directed towards implicating the petitioner while ignoring exculpatory evidence. The conduct of the CBI, such as not pursuing further details from the Swiss Bank Corporation and relying on questionable documents provided by Mr. Mandeep Kapur, raised serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation.

5. Mala Fides in the Proceedings:
The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner were tainted with mala fides. The genesis of the litigation was a disagreement between the petitioner and his superior, leading to a series of biased actions against the petitioner. The court noted that the investigation was not only faulty but also appeared to be motivated by an intent to ensure certain individuals were not prosecuted.

6. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Despite the respondents' argument that the petition raised disputed questions of fact, the court found that the issues could be resolved based on the documents and material on record without the need for oral evidence. The court emphasized that it is not precluded from determining questions of fact under its writ jurisdiction, especially when the facts are clear and undisputed.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002, the charge sheet, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. It directed that no further proceedings be initiated in relation to the subject sanction orders, providing finality to the matter. The court also highlighted the prolonged suffering and prejudice faced by the petitioner due to the biased and unfair investigation.

← Previous Next →