Read Time: 05 minutes
Supreme Court has held that the Appointing Authority, passing the order for prosecution of public servant, can call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC and this can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor as a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration.
The Supreme Court has held that the order of an Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (PC Act) would not be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for its decision.
Court noted that sanction for prosecution of an employee of the Union under the PC Act would involve invocation of specific provisions of the CrPC, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the PC Act, and the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act), all of which constitute a unified scheme.
"The five legislations being the Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act, must be read together to enable the authorities to sub-serve the common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations", added a bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha.
Court further held that the Central Vigilance Commission, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject. It further held,
"It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution. The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority."
Court also held that the final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of an independent mind.
The issue is, therefore, answered by holding that there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant, the top court added.
Case Title: VIJAY RAJMOHAN vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
Please Login or Register
