Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

c) Thirdly, learned senior counsel argued that there is no factual basis to lay charge sheet since the prosecution tacked the properties of wife, brothers-in-law and son of the accused to his assets which was clearly explained by the petitioner in his explanation. Omitting them, there will be no asset worth name to term as disproportionate asset. On this ground also he sought for quashment of proceedings.

d) Additionally, learned senior counsel submitted that in the counter the respondent/ACB made false averments as if earlier it has not sought for sanction in the instant case and for such false averments the respondent may be taken to task for contempt. He thus prayed to allow the petition. 6 a) In oppugnation, Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor firstly argued that earlier Director General, ACB while filing final report sought for sanction to prosecute the petitioner/AO only in respect of trap case covered by RCT/12 which was refused by the Government and subsequently also twice he requested the Government to reconsider its decision, but the Government refused to budge and so what was importuned by the ACB and refused by the Government was the sanction to prosecute the petitioner/AO in the trap case but the ACB never requested the Government to prosecute him in disproportionate assets case. He vehemently argued that the proceedings of Government would amply demonstrate this aspect. Since petitioner/AO retired from service by the time the investigation was completed in disproportionate case, ACB filed charge sheet mentioning that there was no need for sanction which act of ACB is perfectly valid under law. He thus argued that first point raised by the petitioner is not maintainable and cited decision will have no application.

2. Government under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 hereby order that Sri M.Satyanarayana, Sub-

Registrar, Anandapuram be placed on his defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, on the Trap Case. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings shall conduct enquiry as per rules and submit its report to Government within the stipulated period.

3. The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau shall furnish all relevant records and material to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings to conduct enquiry on the trap case.

The above proceedings would clearly disclose that Government considered the request of Director General, ACB in respect of trap case and refused to accord sanction and instead directed the petitioner/AO to appear before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the trap case. There is no whisper in the above proceedings about the disproportionate assets case.

e) When we seek further clarification, we will find in the proceedings dated 04.02.2013 of Principal Secretary to Government in para4 which reads thus:

f) The above would show that the petitioner/accused raised some points on the validity of prosecution in trap case and considering the same, the Government decided to entrust the case to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Therefore, the ACB, AO and Government were clear on the aspect that sanction was sought for in respect of trap case only. So, from the above documents, there is no demur that what was sought for by the ACB and refused by the Government was sanction for prosecution of petitioner/AO in a trap case but not in disproportionate assets case. It is needless to emphasise that soliciting bribe and acquiring assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by a public servant are two different and distinct offences under PC Act. Therefore, one should not be mistaken that refusal by the Government for prosecution in trap case as refusal for prosecution in disproportionate case also.