STATE OF HARYANA versus N.C.TANDON

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 14-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

C'f 
• 
593 
STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
N.C.TANDON 
April 14, 1977 
rv. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. s. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 6( 1) (2 )-Sanction for prosecution-
Validity of-Authority empowered to sanction-Delegation of po1ver to sanction. 
Centtal Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965-
Rule 10-Power delegated to the Chief Engineer of Con11nand-Whethcr can 
be exercised by the zonal Chief Engineer. 
The respondent v.·as convicted for an offence under section 5(2) read with 
s. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the 
I.P.C·. The conviction was set aside by the High Court on the sole ground that 
the sanction for his prosecution was not accorded by a competent authority. 
The respondent Vias a Civilian in the Defence Services in the rank of temporary 
Superintendent, Building and oRads Grade I. The prosec11tion case was that 
he had accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- from one Brij Bhushan Lal, 
Contractor, as a motive or reward for doing an official act. The snnc.tion for 
the prosecution of the respondent was accorded by Brig. 
Naresh 
Prasad, 
Chief Engineer, North Western Zone, Chandigarh. 
The 1-ligh Court held that Brig. Naresh Prasad bad no authority under 
the relevant rules either plenary or delegated to appoint a person to a post 
in dass III service at the time when he 
passed the order for sanction 
of 
prosecution. That such a po\ver \Vas delegated to him subsequently. The 
learned Judge held that the authority was the Chief Engineer, Western Com-
mand and no1 the Zonal Chief Engineer. 
Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that no Court 
shall take cognizance of the offence in question alleged to have been committed 
by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the officer enumerated 
in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that section. 
Sub-section 
2 of section 
6 
further provides that where for any rea6on \Vhatsoever any doubt arises 
whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section ( 1) should be 
given by the Central or State Government or any other authority such sanc-
tion shall be given by that Government or authority which would_ have been 
competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time \vhen the 
offence was alleged to have been committed. 
The appellant contended that by a.n order communicated by letter dated 
27-4-1956 (subsequently reiterated in letter dt. 23-1-1963) made under rule 10, 
the pngineer~in-Chief had. empO\Vered all Chief Engineers in Military Engg. 
Service to make first appointments and that the operation of the said order \Vas 
preserved by the saving clause in rule 34(1) of the 1965 Rules. The appellant 
further contended tha-t the fetter placed on the power given to the Chief Enai-
~eers in the matter of removal or dismissal of Class III servants operates o;iy 
in case of persons appointed by the Engineer-in-Chief and not \vhere he was 
appointed by the Chief Engineer of a Command. 
In the present case, the 
respondent was appointed not by Engineer-in-Chief but by the Chief Engineer, 
Western Command. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent contended that the order dated 27-4-1956 expressly delegates 
H 
the power of inaking first appointments only to the Chief Engineers of the three 
commands then in existence and of the other departments specified therein. 
Jn 
1956, when the order was made there \Vere no zonal Chief Enginers, which 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 3 s.c.R. 
came into existence in December, 1962 as a class apart working under the 
overall administrative control of the Chief Engineers of Commands. A general 
delegation of the power in favour of the Chief Engineers of Commands as a 
class cannot by any reckoning amount to a delegation in favour of the Zonal 
Engineers also Vr'Orking under the control of the Chief Engineers of Commands. 
Secondly, the letter dated 23·1·1963 wais not issued uhder the signature of 
the Engineer-in-Chief nor can it be construed as a delegation of the pow·cr 
of appointment under rule 10. 
Alternatively, the power delegated by the 
Engineer-in-Chief to the Chief Engineers was a qualified one inasmuch as no 
power was given to them to dismiss or remove a Government servant of Class 111 
service. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) Unless a different intention appears the power to appoint to 
an office includes the power to dismiss or remove from that 

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