The learned Special Judge took companynizance of the offences and framed charges.
On that date, the respondent was in receipt of basic minimum salary which was less than Rupees twelve hundred per month.
The learned Special Judge over ruled the objection, which writ challenged by the respondent by way of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
If, however, he is an officer appointed by the Corporation under Section 76A, he may be suspended by the Education Committee pending The orders of the Corporation.
Such an officer can be dismissed by the Commissioner with the previous approval of the Standing Committee.
In due companyrse, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent in the companyrt of Special Judge, Greater Bombay under Sections 5 1 d and 5 2 of the Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the basis of a companyplaint received, a trap was laid.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the sanction granted by the Municipal Commissioner without obtaining the previous approval of the Standing Committee of the Corporation is number valid and companypetent in law inasmuch as the Municipal Commissioner by himself was number companypetent to remove him.
If he is an officer appointed for the purposes of Section 61 q , he can be dismissed by the Commissioner with the previous approval of the Education Committee Clause c of the proviso sub section 2 .
The respondent was caught accepting the money.
The Municipal Commissioner granted sanction for prosecuting the respondent and another employee under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 the Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code on January 4, 1988.
Respondent, K.K.Jagtiani, was an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay.
P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
