STATE (ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH) GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. versus DR. R.C. ANAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 15-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE (ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH) GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF 
A 
DELHI AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. R.C. ANAND AND ANR. 
APRIL 15, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19/All India Institute of 
Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999; Schedule-11/Code of Criminal Procedure, C 
1973; Section 482: 
Demand of illegal gratification by an employee from a Supplier for 
renewal of contract-Tape-recording of conversation-Complaint-Anti 
Corruption Bureau laid a trap, caught the employee red-handed-He was 
placed under suspension-Sanction to prosecute not recommended by the D 
Ministry of Law & Justice and the Central Vigilance Commission-Declining 
to grant the sanction President of the institute revoked the order of suspension 
subject to its ratification by the Governing Body/authority-However, the 
authority concerned did not ratify the order of the President-Challenge to--
Allowed by High Court holding that the authority could not supersede the 
decision of the President-On appeal, Held: High Court proceeded on the E 
wrong premise that the decision arrived at by the President was in the capacity 
of the sanctioning authority but under the Regulations the sanctioning authority 
was the Governing Body-President has no role to play -Recording of reasons 
by the authority to differ from the order of the President not necessary-Since 
the authority had considered all the material and evidence on record, Order F 
passed by it meeting the requirement of law-Hence, judgment of the High 
Court not sustainable and set aside-No view expressed on the merits of the 
case-Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law-Directions issued. 
A Contractor supplying materials to All India Institute of Medical 
Sciences (Institute) filed a complaint against Respondent No.1 alleging that G 
he was demanding illegal gratification for renewal of the contract. In this 
connection, the complainant had tape-recorded the conversation between 
himself and Respondent No. 1 and approached the Anti Corruption 
Branch. It laid a trap and caught Respondent No.1/employee red-handed 
161 
H 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A and he was placed under suspension. In the meanwhile, the appellant 
sought for sanction for prosecuting the errant employee. The Institute in 
turn sought certain clarifications from the Ministry of Law and Justice, 
Government of India and Central Vigilance Commission. They did not 
grant sanction to prosecute the employee. President of the Institute passed 
B an order revoking the order of suspension subject to its ratification by 
the Governing Body. However, the Governing Body granted the sanction 
and placed Respondent No.I under suspension. Aggrieved, he filed a writ 
petition and High Court quashed the order. Hence, the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that since the Governing Body was 
C Appointing Authority as well as disciplinary authority in respect of 
Respondent No.l, only it has the authority to grant sanction to prosecute 
him, and since the President of the I~stitute has no role to play~ recording 
of reasons by the Governing Body for departing from the opinion of the 
President was not necessary. 
D 
E 
Respondent submitted that the view of the President should not ~ave 
been ignored by the Governing Body; and that it was imperative for the 
Governing Body to apply its mind while granting sanction to prosecute 
the employee. 
Partly· all?wing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court proceeded on the pre~ise that the 
sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind, and it was 
applied by the President and he sought for ratification by Governing Body. 
The approach was clearly erroneous as the sanctioning authority was the 
Governing Body and not the President. When the Authority competent 
F to accord sanction is the G.overning Body under the statutory Regulations 
and that body takes a decision there was no necessity for recording reasons 
to differ from the view expressed by the President who had legally no role 
to play. The allocation of· powers distinctly made by the statutory 
Regulations earmarking their own fields, subjects and topics cannot be 
G legitimately ignored, on any assumptions or baseless_ presumptions. There 
·is no justification in law or any principle of construction to import any 
restriction on the independent exercise of power by the earmarked 
Authority on its own under the Regulations. The President cannot i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.