- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gopikant Choudhary v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, who served as an Executive Engineer, was alleged to have caused an excess payment of Rs. 2750 to a contractor by not discharging his duties in accordance with the relevant rules. Under the Bihar Rules of Business, matters involving losses of less than Rs. 10,000 are to be decided by the minister in charge of the concerned department. The file was initially placed before the Law Minister, who, after examining the materials, refused to grant sanction for prosecution. The appellant retired in 1994. In 1997, however, the Chief Minister issued a fresh order granting sanction for prosecution. The High Court declined to interfere with this second sanction order, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Chief Minister’s 1997 order granting sanction for prosecution, after the Law Minister had already refused sanction, is legally sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- No new evidence or materials were collected after the Law Minister’s refusal; therefore, a fresh sanction was unwarranted.
- The Law Minister was the competent authority under the Rules of Business because the alleged loss was only Rs. 2750 (below the Rs. 10,000 threshold).
- The appellant had already retired in 1994, making further prosecution disproportionate and unjustified.
State's Arguments
- The non-performance of official duty, not merely the excess payment, constituted the gravamen of the charge.
- The earlier refusal of sanction was invalid because the file had not been placed before the competent authority, namely the Chief Minister.
- Accordingly, when the file reached the Chief Minister, he validly exercised his authority to grant sanction.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the original file and found:
- No application of mind was evident in the Chief Minister’s 1997 decision.
- No fresh investigative material had emerged between the Law Minister’s refusal and the Chief Minister’s subsequent sanction.
- Under the Rules of Business, cases involving losses under Rs. 10,000 should be finally dealt with by the departmental minister, and in this case the Law Minister had already exercised that authority.
- Given the negligible amount involved (Rs. 2750) and the appellant’s retirement, it was unreasonable and unnecessary for the State to pursue prosecution.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the Chief Minister lacked justification to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh sanction.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The impugned sanction order dated 10-12-1997 issued by the Chief Minister is quashed, and the appeals are DISPOSED OF.
Implications: The prosecution against the appellant cannot proceed in the absence of a valid sanction. The decision is confined to the specific procedural irregularities identified and does not set a broader precedent beyond reaffirming adherence to the prescribed Rules of Business when granting sanction for prosecution.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the impugned order of sanction for prosecution given by the Chief Minister can at all be sustained in law.
3. The appellant was serving as Executive Engineer and the allegation is that in respect of some work a sum of Rs. 2750 was paid in excess to the contractor. Mr B.B Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar submitted that the non-discharge of the duty by the Executive Engineer in accordance with the rules is the gravamen of the charge and not the excess amount which ultimately can be said to have been paid to the contractor.
4. We do not find any force in the said contention, inasmuch as in the very document itself it has been indicated that failure on the part of the Executive Engineer to perform his duty in accordance with the rules has been responsible for making the State pay excess amount to the tune of Rs. 2750. Under the Rules of Business, all cases of defalcation, misappropriation or embezzlement of public funds involving more than Rs. 10,000 are required to be placed before the Chief Minister and cases involving lesser amount shall be placed before the minister in charge of the department concerned.
5. In the case in hand, the matter was initially placed before the Minister of Law who refused to accord sanction after applying his mind to the entire materials and an order to that effect was passed. Subsequent to the same, the appellant retired in the year 1994 and it is only in 1997, the Chief Minister appears to have passed the impugned order. The appellant assailed the legality of the aforesaid order in the High Court, but the High Court having not interfered, he has approached this Court. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that no fresh materials were collected subsequent to the earlier order refusing to sanction prosecution and the appropriate authority having applied its mind and having passed the said order, the subsequent order was wholly uncalled for and unjustified. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State, it has been indicated that before passing the earlier order, the matter had not been referred to the Chief Minister who was the competent authority and, therefore, when the matter was referred to the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister having passed the order there is no infirmity with the order of sanction in question. He also produced the relevant file before us to indicate as to how the file has been processed after the earlier order refusing to sanction prosecution.
6. We find from the file that was produced that there has been no application of mind when the subsequent order was passed in the year 1997. It further appears that between the order refusing to sanction and the order that was passed in 1997, the investigating agency had not collected any fresh materials requiring a fresh look at the earlier order. It is also apparent that the alleged excess amount said to have been paid on account of non-performance of the duty by the appellant is to the tune of Rs. 2750 and, therefore, under the Rules of Business, the file pertaining to sanction would have been finally dealt with by the Law Minister and, in fact, he had done so. In this view of the matter, neither was there any necessity for the authorities concerned to place the file before the Chief Minister nor had the Chief Minister any occasion to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order sanctioning prosecution particularly when taking into account the loss sustained to the exchequer to the tune of Rs. 2750. That apart, the person concerned has already retired in the year 1994 and it is unthinkable that for a loss of Rs. 2750 the State would pursue the proceedings against such person. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of sanction dated 10-12-1997 passed by the Chief Minister for prosecuting the appellant.
7. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Alert