STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus YOGENDRA NATH ARORA

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 18-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 5 S.C.R. 233 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
v. 
YOGENDRA NATH ARORA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2013) 
MARCH 18, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.19(1)(c) - Sanction 
for prosecution - Competent authority - Employee of an C 
undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh - Consequently 
taken on deputation and posted in a undertaking of the State 
of Uttarakhand - While working there, case lodged against 
employee-respondent u/s. 7 rlw s. 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Act 
- Respondent repatriated on the same day to his parent D 
organization by the State Government of Uttarakhand which 
also granted sanction for his prosecution - High Court 
quashed prosecution holding that the State Government of 
the Uttar Pradesh was competent to remove him and to grant 
necessary sanction,_ and not the State Government of E 
Uttarakhand - Whether respondent being on deputation to an 
undertaking of the State Government of Uttarakhand, it had 
the power to repatriate him which would mean the power of 
removal from office by the State Government of Uttarakhand 
- Held, No - The power to repatriate does not embrace within 
F 
itself the power of removal from office as envisaged ul 
s.19(1)(c) of the Act - The purport of taking the sanction from 
the authority competent to remove a corrupt government 
servant from his office is not only to remove him from his 
temporary office but to remove him from government service G 
- It was the State Government of the Uttar Pradesh which was 
competent to remove the respondent and to grant necessary 
sanction. 
233 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Office - Meaning of 
- Repatriation - Effect of - Words and Phrases. 
The accused-respondent was earlier employed in an 
undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequent 
8 upon reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he was 
taken on deputation and posted in a Government 
undertaking of the State of Uttarakhand. While working 
there, he was arrested for accepting illegal gratification 
and a case was lodged under Section 7 read with Section 
C 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988. The respondent was repatriated on the same day 
to his parent organization by the State Government of 
Uttarakhand which also granted sanction for his 
prosecution. By the impugned judgment, the High Court 
held that the respondent being an employee of an 
D undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh 
and having been repatriated to his parent department, it 
was the State Government of the Uttar Pradesh which 
was competent to remove him and to grant necessary 
sanction, and not the State Government of Uttarakhand 
E and accordingly~ quashed the prosecution of the, 
respondent for being without valid sanction. 
The State of Uttarakhand contended before this 
Court that the respondent being on deputation to an 
F undertaking of the State Government of Uttarakhand, it 
had the power to repatriate him which would mean the 
power of removal from office by the State Government of 
Uttarakhand. 
G 
The question which therefore arose for determination 
was whether removal from his office would mean 
dislodging from holding that office and shifting to another 
office or in other words, whether the power of the State 
Government of Uttarakhand to repatriate the respondent 
H tneant that it had the power to remove. 
· 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. YOGENDRA NATH 
235 
ARORA 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Office means a position which requires 
the person holding it to perform certain duties and 
discharge certain obligations and removal from his office 
would mean to snap that permanently. By repatriation, the 
8 
person holding the office on deputation may not be 
required to perform that duty and discharge the obligation 
of that office, but nonetheless he continues to hold office 
and by virtue thereof performs certain other duties and 
discharge certain other obligations. Therefore the power c 
to repatriate does not embrace within itself the power of 
removal from office as envisaged under Section 19(1)(c) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The term 
removal means the act of removing from office or putting 
an end to an employment. The purport of taking the 
0 
sanction from the authority competent to remove a 
corrupt government servant from his office is not only to 
remove him from his tempo

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