Whether sanction is necessary for retired employee

Whether sanction is necessary for retired employee? A loan was sanctioned in August 2012. CBI admitted the case, employee retired in 31st march 2013. The bank filed complaint with CBI without charging sanctioning authority in 1.6 2017. CBI filed case on 30.07.2019 without taking approval from sanctioning authority. Case was admitted in CBI court. Bank subsequently refused permission for prosecution and sanction was denied. Recently case is standing at the point of charge. As the bank has filed complaint after four years with CBI and also sanction have denied by the bank. Whether discharge is possible under above circumstance.

Whether sanction is necessary for retired employee? A loan was sanctioned in August 2012. CBI admitted the case, employee retired in 31st march 2013. The bank filed complaint with CBI without charging sanctioning authority in 1.6 2017. CBI filed case on 30.07.2019 without taking approval from sanctioning authority. Case was admitted in CBI court. Bank subsequently refused permission for prosecution and sanction was denied. Recently case is standing at the point of charge.

As the bank has filed complaint after four years with CBI and also sanction have denied by the bank. Whether discharge is possible under above circumstance.

The CBI initiated proceeding against you after the retirement therefore, you are not entitle to take protection granted to public servant under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the court would have taken congnisance on or before the retirement then sanction was mandatory [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655].

Whether sanction is necessary for retired employee?

The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The law on the point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. [State of Punjab v. Labh Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 807]

The above provision is applicable if charges sheet is produced for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If the charge sheet did not file under the PC Act then a retired public service is entitled to take the protection available to him under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (crpc).

If charge sheet is relating to the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), then sanction is mandatory [State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527]. According to section 197 crpc, court cannot frame charge without sanction of the concerned authority. As you said that sanction has been denied, so court cannot frame charge against you if the offence committed under the IPC only. In this condition discharge is possible.

Tags:

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.