2017 (8) TMI 582 - HC - Customs

Power of review - relevancy of the exoneration of disciplinary proceedings for quashing of sanction - Held that - It is legally settled that the power of review is possible only when there is an express provision enabling the Authority to review the earlier stand. It is equally settled that in respect of the grant of sanction to prosecute, when once on certain materials the Sanctioning Authority decides not to grant sanction, certainly, on the same materials, the Sanctioning Authority cannot change its opinion. By a catena of decisions, it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. A grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act, which removes the umbrella of protection of Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and the aforesaid requirements must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants. The mind of the Sanctioning Authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. While law is thus settled, on the facts of the present case, the impugned sanction that has been given by the authority on the same material, which was available before the authority on the earlier occasion, when the refusal was made, cannot stand. The Sanctioning Authority having taken a lenient view earlier of declining to grant sanction has changed its opinion without any fresh materials and granted sanction, which cannot be allowed to stand. It is not permissible for the Sanctioning Authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sanction order dated 31.10.2013.
2. Whether the sanctioning authority can review its earlier decision based on the same materials.
3. Applicability of fresh materials in reconsidering the sanction.
4. Impact of external pressure or influence on the sanctioning authority's decision.
5. The relevance of disciplinary proceedings and their outcomes on the sanction order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the sanction order dated 31.10.2013:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the sanction order dated 31.10.2013 issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner argued that the sanction was initially refused by the competent authority on 13.08.2013 after a detailed examination, but was later granted without any new material from the Investigating Agency, solely at the behest of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The court found that the sanction order was issued on the same materials previously considered, which is impermissible.

2. Whether the sanctioning authority can review its earlier decision based on the same materials:
The court referenced several judgments, including *State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen* and *M.S. Vijayakumar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank*, which established that once the statutory power to grant or refuse sanction has been exercised, it cannot be reviewed on the same materials. The court emphasized that a change of opinion on the same materials cannot justify a review or reconsideration of the earlier decision to refuse sanction.

3. Applicability of fresh materials in reconsidering the sanction:
The court scrutinized the claim that fresh materials were considered in granting the sanction. It was found that the materials referred to as new, such as RMS instructions and details on CVD and MRP, were already known and considered by the competent authority when initially refusing the sanction. Therefore, these could not be deemed fresh materials justifying a reversal of the earlier decision.

4. Impact of external pressure or influence on the sanctioning authority's decision:
The court noted that the competent authority initially refused the sanction based on a thorough examination. However, the subsequent decision to grant sanction was influenced by the CVC's advice, without rebutting the earlier findings or considering any new investigative materials. This indicated external pressure, which is impermissible as the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction must be exercised independently, without extraneous influence.

5. The relevance of disciplinary proceedings and their outcomes on the sanction order:
The court acknowledged that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner resulted in dropping the charges, which further supported the argument that the sanction for prosecution was unwarranted. The court held that the exoneration in disciplinary proceedings has relevance in assessing the validity of the sanction order, reinforcing the view that the sanction was granted under improper circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the sanction order dated 31.10.2013 was issued without any fresh materials and under external pressure from the CVC. The earlier decision to refuse sanction was based on a detailed and reasoned examination, which was improperly overturned. Consequently, the impugned sanction order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.