Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Bhargav vs Special Police Establishment ... on 12 July, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
WRIT PETITION No. 17044 of 2021
Between:-
ANIL KUMAR BHARGAV S/O SHRI RAMADHAR
BHARGAV , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
COMPUTER OPERATOR M.P. BHOJ (OPEN UNIVERSITY)
RAJA BHOJ MARG BHOPAL 14-A SHRIKRISHNA
SOCIETY CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMITABH GUPTA, ADV.)
AND
1. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA
ORGANIZATION THR. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE S.P.E. LOKAYUKTA BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR M.P. BHOJ OPEN
UNIVERSITY RAJA BHOJ MARG BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
3. REGISTRAR M.P. BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY BHOJ
MARG, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. M.P. BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY THROUGH
REGISTRAR BHOJ MARG, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRICIPAL
SECRETARY, LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET AWASTHI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SMT. SHOBHA MENON, SR. ADV. with SHRI RAHUL CHOUBEY, ADV. FOR
RESPONDENTS 2, 3 and 4)
Reserved on : 06.04.2022
Passed on : 12.07.2022
Per : Justice Sheel Nagu :
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an accused in Crime No.205/2013 alleging offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 3 1988 registered at Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Bhopal assailing the order Annexure P-18 dated 14.1.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for the said offences.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
3. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was working as Computer Operator-cum-Officiating Deputy Regional Manager of respondent No.4/University was proceeded against for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. It is submitted that after the competent authority (disciplinary authority) declined to grant sanction twice, the impugned order was passed without presence of any new substantial material and without application of mind but solely on the basis of undue influence and coercion on the part of prosecuting agency (Lokayukt Organisation) and therefore, relying upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chouhan Vs. State of Gujrat (1997) 7 SCC 622, Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 53, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 and State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 14.1.2020 vide Annexure P-18. 4
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/University has submitted that the competent authority under the University has passed the impugned order of granting sanction for prosecution after application of mind and also in the light of the decision in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.13679/2015 which was finally disposed of on 12.2.2018 vide Annexure P-12. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no element of undue influence or coercion on the part of the prosecuting agency upon the University.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and considered the submission of the learned counsel for both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that to adjudicate the present dispute, this court need not go into the prolixity of factual rigmarole and legal submissions in the face of the final order dated 12.2.2018 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.13679/2015 vide Annexure P-12. For ready reference and convenience, the order dated 12.2.2018 in the earlier round is reproduced below:
"Shri Pankaj Dubey, counsel for the petitioner/Lokayukt.
Shri Ankit Saxena, counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3.
This petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Registrar, M.P. Bhoj (Open University), Bhopal; whereby the sanction to prosecute Anil Bhargava, Computer Operator and In-Charge Deputy Regional Manager, Bhoj University has been refused.
One Rashmi Solanki appeared in B.Sc. Part-III examination conducted by the Raja Bhoj (Open) University. Her original marksheet was not handed-over to her, 5 therefore, she requested her cousin Pukhraj Singh Pawar to obtain the original marksheet. Pukhraj met Mr. Anil Bhargava in connection with supply of original mark-sheet and it is alleged that he demanded Rs.700/- as illegal gratification. A complaint was, therefore, made to the Lakayukt. Trap was laid and Anil Bhargava was caught red-handed on 21.5.2014. After completing the investigation a complete set of documents along with Prativedan was sent to the Registrar to accord sanction for prosecution.
The Registrar, Open University by the impugned communication refused to grant sanction considering the pros and cons of the material available in the University.
It seems that the Registrar had not looked into the set of documents collected during investigation, perusal whereof clearly shows that Anil Bhargava was caught redhanded in presence of independent witnesses with Rs.700/- and original marksheet was also recovered from the possession of Anil Bhargava.
The law regarding grant of sanction is well settled. Grant of sanction is an administrative act, the purpose of which is not to protect the corrupt. The Supreme Courthas gone even to the extent of saying that Principles of natural justice or giving an opportunity to the public servant at this stage, does not arise. The sanctioning authority has only to see whether facts of case prima facie constitute the offence. See: Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1185. This is in conformity with law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another Vs. Shri P.P.Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) Vs. Deepak Chowdhary and others, AIR 1996 SC 186.
In view of this, we are unable to sustain the impugned order of refusal of sanction for prosecution. The same is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Registrar to apply a fresh mind and pass an order of sanction for prosecution after considering the relevant material.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs."6
7. Pertinently, the aforesaid order dated 12.2.2018 was passed after the competent authority of the University had declined grant of sanction to prosecution for the first time vide its order dated 23.12.2014. When this order was put to test before this Court in W.P.No.13679/2016, this Court passed the aforesaid order on 12.2.2018.
A bare perusal of the order dated 12.2.2018 reveals that after taking into account the skeletal facts of the case against the petitioner, the coordinate bench was of the view that the Registrar had ignored to look into the material collected by the prosecuting agency revealing that the petitioner had been caught red handed in a case of acceptance of illegal gratification and the said tainted money of Rs.700/ was also recovered from the possession of petitioner. The coordinate bench further held that the law relating to grant or refusal to grant sanction for prosecution is not meant to protect to the corrupt.
8. The aforesaid categorical findings are not mere observation but outcome of adjudication of the earlier order of University refusing grant of sanction.
9. It is not disputed at the bar by rival parties that the aforesaid order of the coordinate bench dated 12.2.2018 has attained finallity in the absence of any challenge to the same by any of the parties to the case and thus is binding on the petitioner.
7
10. In this view of the matter, where the coordinate bench had already found the case of the petitioner to be suitable for grant of sanction for prosecution on the given facts and material which have not changed even today, this Court refrains from taking a different view.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order of grant of sanction to the prosecution (Annexure P-18). Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU ) (MANINDER S BHATTI )
JUDGE JUDGE
P/
Digitally signed by MRS
PREETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.07.13 17:06:40
+05'30'