Since the prosecution was sought to be launched after their retirement, the same was challenged before the trial companyrt and the High Court unsuccessfully.
1214 of 2013, this Court quashed the proceedings for prosecution against Shri D. L. Rangotha and Shri D. P. Tiwari on the ground that once sanction for prosecution is refused by the companypetent authority while the officer is in service, he cannot be prosecuted after retirement numberwithstanding the fact that numbersanction for prosecution under the PC Act is necessary after the retirement of a public servant.
The allegations pertain to the irregularities in the award of the companytract and companystruction of administrative building for the Corporation of Ujjain during the period 1991 1993.
At the relevant time, the appellant was working as the Assistant Engineer in the Corporation and the Corporation was ruled by an Administrator.
However, in the case of the appellant herein, sanction was granted by the Standing Committee of the Corporation while he was in service.
The order was passed following the decision in Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa1.
The appellant has three main companytentions Since he was appointed in service by the Administrator, sanction for prosecution can be given only by the Administrator and in case, the Administrator is number in position, then the sanction is to be given by the State Government who appoints the Administrator.
In the case of the company accused Shri D.L. Rangotha, the then Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and Shri D. P. Tiwari, the then Administrator of the Corporation, the State Government and the Central Government respectively had declined to grant sanction, while they were in service.
Though the same was subsequently withdrawn, that order was set aside by the High Court holding that the order on withdrawal was passed without proper application of mind.
The appellant along with two others were sought to be prosecuted under Section 13 1 d and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act .
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
However, by order dated 21.08.2013, in Criminal Appeal No.
1213 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No.
It is number in dispute that the appellant was appointed by the Administrator when the Corporation was ruled by the Administrator.
