Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal prosecution initiated against an Assistant Engineer employed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The respondent, an Assistant Engineer, was caught accepting a bribe during a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Municipal Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution on January 4, 1988, under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. At the relevant time, the respondent's minimum monthly salary was less than Rs 1200. A charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge took cognizance and framed charges. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the sanction was invalid because the Municipal Commissioner had not obtained the prior approval of the Standing Committee, as required under Section 83(2) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for dismissal of an employee whose minimum monthly salary was less than Rs 1200. The Special Judge overruled the objection. The respondent challenged the order through a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the objection and allowed the writ petition, holding the sanction invalid. The State, through the Anti-Corruption Bureau, appealed to the Supreme Court. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Municipal Commissioner alone was the 'authority competent to remove' the respondent for the purpose of Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or whether the prior approval of the Standing Committee was an essential component making the Commissioner incompetent without such approval. The respondent argued that under clause (c) of Section 83(2), the Commissioner could not dismiss him without prior approval of the Standing Committee, and therefore the competent authority for sanction must be the Commissioner acting with such approval, rendering the sanction invalid. The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Municipal Corporation, contended that the Commissioner alone was the competent authority to dismiss, as the requirement of prior approval was only a condition to be complied with and did not make the Standing Committee the competent authority. He relied on the Constitution Bench decision in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, where it was held that the expression 'authority competent to remove' in Section 6(1)(c) has to be construed to mean also an authority without whose order or affirmation the public servant cannot be removed, and that the President could accord sanction for prosecution of a Judge without the requirement of an address by Parliament under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined Section 83 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the scheme of clause (a) and clause (c) of its proviso. It noted that for an officer whose minimum monthly salary was less than Rs 1200, clause (a) did not apply, and the respondent fell under clause (c). Under clause (c), the Commissioner could impose fine, reduction or suspension, but dismissal required previous approval of the Standing Committee. The Court considered the liberal construction given to Section 6(1)(c) in K. Veeraswami, where it was held that the provision is not penal but a measure of protection for public servants and should be liberally construed. The Court found that the reasoning in K. Veeraswami supported the view that the Commissioner remained the competent authority despite the requirement of prior approval. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, and upheld the sanction granted by the Municipal Commissioner as valid and competent under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution of the respondent was permitted to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution - Authority Competent to Remove - Section 6(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 83(2), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act - Sanction granted by Municipal Commissioner without prior approval of Standing Committee is valid because Commissioner remains the competent appointing and removing authority while the requirement of approval is only a condition precedent for dismissal - The High Court's contrary view was erroneous; following K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, the expression 'authority competent to remove' is construed liberally; Held that appeal allowed and sanction upheld (Paras 1-6) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Liberal Construction of Protective Provision - Section 6(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Provision is a protection for public servants and should be construed liberally to effectuate legislative object - The authority without whose order or affirmation a public servant cannot be removed is included within 'authority competent to remove'; however, the approving authority does not replace the primary appointing/removing authority for sanction purposes - Held that the President could accord sanction for prosecution of a Judge without prior parliamentary address, and similarly the Commissioner could accord sanction without Standing Committee approval (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay was competent to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 without obtaining the previous approval of the Standing Committee, when the accused employee's minimum monthly salary was less than Rs 1200 and his dismissal required such prior approval under Section 83(2) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, and upheld the sanction granted by the Municipal Commissioner as valid and competent under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution of the respondent was permitted to proceed.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947 must be by authority competent to remove public servant
- Authority competent to remove includes authority without whose order or affirmation public servant cannot be removed
- Requirement of previous approval of Standing Committee under Section 83(2) of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act does not make Standing Committee the competent authority for sanction
- K. Veeraswami v. Union of India followed on liberal construction of Section 6(1)(c)
- Municipal Commissioner is competent to grant sanction despite prior approval requirement for dismissal
