Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of a private school (Headmaster, teacher, and clerk), were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3000 for issuing a transfer certificate. The petitioners filed an application for discharge before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Latur, primarily on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was granted by the Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary), whereas the competent authority to grant sanction was the school management. The trial court rejected the discharge application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. It noted that under Section 4, the 'appointing authority' for employees of a private school is the school management, as defined in the Rules. The Director of Education is not the appointing authority. Since the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the employee from office, and the school management is that authority, the sanction granted by the Director of Education was invalid. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and discharged the petitioners from the offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court considered whether the Director of Education is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of private school employees. The court held that under Section 4 of the MEPS Act, 1977, the school management is the appointing authority, and therefore the sanction by the Director of Education was invalid. The discharge application was allowed. (Paras 6-10) B) Service Law - Appointing Authority - Private School Employees - Section 4 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The court examined the definition of 'appointing authority' under the MEPS Act and Rules. It held that the school management, not the Director of Education, is the appointing authority for employees of a private school. Consequently, the sanction for prosecution must be granted by the management. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary) is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of employees of a private school under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or whether the school management is the competent authority under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 05/09/2019 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Latur, and discharged the petitioners from the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act must be by the appointing authority
- Director of Education is not the appointing authority for private school employees under MEPS Act
- 1977
- Discharge application allowed due to invalid sanction
