Court finds sanction order was issued without proper application of mind, setting aside proceedings against public servant
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the sanction order issued against the Deputy Commissioner of State Excise, Rewa, formerly serving as Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Indore. The court found that the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind independently and fairly, thereby rendering the sanction order invalid.
The case, titled Meenakshi Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh, revolved around allegations of disproportionate assets against the petitioner's spouse, a public servant. The petitioners challenged the validity of the sanction granted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arguing that the sanction order was passed mechanically without considering the independent income of the petitioner's spouse, which was substantiated through Income Tax Returns and other records.
The bench, comprising Justices Vivek Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Nirankari, observed that the sanctioning authority must independently evaluate all relevant materials before granting prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that the spouse's independent professional and agricultural income could not be arbitrarily included in the public servant's income assessment for disproportionate assets.
The petitioners argued that all assets, both movable and immovable, were duly accounted for in the Income Tax Returns and declared in compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Despite this, proceedings were initiated by rejecting the spouse's total income and including her assets in the public servant's account, showing an income 88% more than known sources.
The court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., to underscore the necessity of independent application of mind in sanctioning prosecutions and the importance of recognizing independent incomes in asset assessments.
The judgment reiterates that a sanction order must not be issued mechanically or under external pressure, and should reflect a genuine satisfaction upon examining all materials presented by the investigating agency. The court found that the sanctioning authority failed to consider the substantiated professional and agricultural income of the petitioner's spouse, leading to an incorrect assessment of disproportionate assets.
By setting aside the impugned sanction order dated April 4, 2025, the High Court has quashed all subsequent proceedings emanating from it, emphasizing the need for fairness and objectivity in prosecuting public servants under corruption charges.
Bottom Line:
Validity of sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act must involve independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, considering all relevant material, and should not be influenced by extraneous factors.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(b), 13(2), 19(1); Constitution of India Article 226; Indian Penal Code Section 120B
