LexM.P. STATE versus PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B [2011] 6 S.C.R. 882 M.P. STATE v. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA (Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2007) MAY 18, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961 - s. 86 - Sanction for prosecution of a public servant - Respondent- C employee, an engineer in Municipal Corporation - Punishment imposed on him in the form of withdrawal of two increments - Sanction for prosecution of respondent granted by the State Government - Validity of - Held: Respondent was appointed by the State Government and remained under D the control of the State Government throughout his service - State Government besides being the Appointing Authority was also the Authority to impose punishment and remove the respondent - Consequently, in terms of s. 19 of the PC Act, 1988, the State Government was competent to grant sanction E to prosecute the respondent - Thus, High Court erred in holding that the grant of sanction for prosecution by the State Government was invalid - Madhya Pradesh Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973- rr. 17 and 32- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19. F Respondent-public servant was appointed by the State Government. He was posted as an Engineer in the Municipal Corporation. in the course of employment, the penalty of withdrawing of two increments was imposed on the respondent by the State Government. The State G Government granted sanction to prosecute the respondent. In a revision, the High Court held that sanction for prosecution granted to the respondent was invalid and quashed the same. It was held that the H 882 M.P. STATE v. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA 883 respondent could 'be removed from the post by the A Mayor-in.Council under the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, the appeJlanffiled the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: The respondent having been appointed under Section 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961 has been appointed by the State Government and remains under the control of the State Government throughout his service. It is clear from Rule 32 of the C Madhya Pradesh Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 that the State Government is the Appointing Authority and the State Government can impose on the members of the State Service penalties mentioned in clause (i) to (vi) of such Rule. Therefore, the State D Governmentbeing the Appointing Authority and being the Authority tQ i.tnpose punishment on the employee is also the Authority which can remove an employee from the service. It is clear from Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the Authority who is E competent to remove the person concerned is competent to grant sanction. The High Court, without considering these aspects of the Act and Rules, came to an erroneous finding. Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10, 13, 14, 17] [886-A, G-H; 887-A; 888-B] F Ashok Baija/ vs. M.P. Government 1998 Crl. L.J. 3511 -distinguished. State of Tamil Nadu vs. T. Thu/asingam and Ors. AIR 1975 SupremeCourt 1314 - referred to. G Case Law Reference: 1998 Crl. L.J. 3511 Distinguished. Para 3 AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1314 Referred to. Para 15 H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of M.P. Bench at Indore in Criminal 8 Revision No. 380 of 2003. c S.K. Dubey, Vikas Bansal, Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. GANGULY, J. 1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the State impugning the order of the High Court dated 17.12.2004 whereby the High Court in a revision filed before it D was pleased to held that sanction for prosecution which was granted to the respondent, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta was invalid and High Court was pleased to quash the same. 2. In coming to the said finding, the High Court, inter alia, E held that Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, (hereinafter called the respondent), was posted as an Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Ujjain and was a public servant and can be removed from the said post by the Mayor-in-Council under the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal F Corporation Act and the sanction for prosecution granted by the State Government is invalid and incompetent. G H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.