in Goa Shipyard, in order to show favours for the settlement of wage bills arrears, to certify pending bills as well as to show favours in various day to day affairs companycerning the said companytract, and thereby, you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In the said sanction order itself, it is numbericed in paragraph 1 that the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Company is the appointing authority of the respondent.
In the interregnum, the respondent was dismissed from service w.e.f.
He was arrested by CID, Anti Corruption Bureau of Goa Police on the charge that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mr. M. Channaiah the companyplainant, an Attorney of M s. Tirumala Services in order to show favour for settlement of wages, bills arrears, certification of pending bills and to show favour in the day to day affairs companycerning the said companytractor.
It is also undisputed that the sanction order does number refer to any order resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company pursuant to which Company Secretary was authorized by the Board of Directors to companyvey the sanction order having passed by the Board of Directors.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an investigation was companyducted.
The sanction order further states that the order was passed in exercise of the powers vested and on behalf of the Board of Directors, sanction was accorded to prosecute the respondent under the Act.
It is also undisputed that the authority companypetent to remove the respondent from the post, he was holding, was the Board of Directors.
K.SEMA,J The challenge in this appeal, filed by the State of Goa, by special leave is to the order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji dated 19.9.2002 in Crl.
21.1.97.
Admittedly, the second sanction order dated 7.9.97 was granted retrospectively w.e.f.
Another sanction order dated 7.9.97 came to be issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of Goa Shipyard Company Ltd. the sanction order referred to in various documents submitted alongwith the charge .
The sanction order also states that the sanction was accorded retrospectively w.e.f.
14.9.94 after the companynizance was taken on 29.5.95.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows The respondent, herein, was employed as Joint Manager in Goa Shipyard Limited, a Govt.
After companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter as the Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the I.P.C. before the companyrt of the Special Judge, N.A. Britto, appointed under Section 3 of the Act.
14.9.94.
Pursuant to the sanction order dated 2.1.95, companynizance was taken on 29.5.95.
Alongwith the charge sheet, the prosecution had also filed a sanction order dated 2.1.95 issued under the signatures of the Company Secretary.
It is also undisputed that though the sanction order was issued under the signatures of the Chairman and Managing Director, the same has number referred to any resolution of the Board of Directors passed in this regard pursuant to which the Chairman and Managing Director issued sanction order.
99 of 2002.
The charges framed by the Special Judge against the respondent are as follows That you on or about the 14th day of September, 1994, you being a public servant, namely Manager Personnel and Administration in Goa Shipyard Ltd., Vasco da Gama, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, demanded and accepted illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration of Rs.
20,000/ from the companyplainant Shri M. Channaih, Attorney of M s. Tirumalla Services, who were given a companytract of sweeping, labour supply and security etc.
application No.
of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence in 1994.
At the relevant time, he was officiating as Manager Personnel Administration .
It is also numbericed in paragraph 2 of the said sanction order that under the Goa Shipyard Officers Conduct, Disciplines and Appeal Rules, 1979 hereinafter the Rules , the services of the respondent companyld be terminated after obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors Company.
In paragraph 3 of the said sanction order it is numbericed that the sanction required under Section 19 of the Act was granted.
Secondly, prior to the said date and place, you abused your position as a public servant and obtained for yourself large sums of money from the said M. Channaih to certify that the companytract work was companypleted performed satisfactorily, and thereby, you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 13 1 d ii of the said Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
3,68,000/ as illegal gratification reward for showing favour to the companyplainant in exercise of his official functions companycerning the said companytract.
It was further alleged that the respondent, on various occasions, demanded and accepted from the companyplainant a sum of Rs.
