Summary
The High Court had quashed corruption and IPC proceedings against a retired BBMP Chief Engineer because the chargesheet was filed more than four years after the alleged offence, contrary to Rule 214(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, and because no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained. The Supreme Court held that Rule 214 is a pension rule enabling withholding or withdrawal of pension and has no application to stifle criminal proceedings, that Section 197 CrPC protection extends to retired public servants so the quashing of IPC offences for want of sanction was correct, but that Section 19 of the PC Act, before its 2018 amendment, required sanction only for public servants in office when cognisance was taken; the PC Act proceedings were restored.
Issues
- Whether Rule 214(3) read with Rule 214(6)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, which bars institution of judicial proceedings more than four years after the cause of action, can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings for offences under the IPC or the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before cognisance of IPC offences against a public servant who had retired by the time the chargesheet was filed.
- Whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was required for a public servant who had retired before cognisance was taken, in respect of offences committed before the 2018 amendment.
Provisions considered
- Rule 214(3) and Rule 214(6)(b), Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958Rule 214, in the pension chapter, empowers the Government to withhold or withdraw pension or recover pecuniary loss where a pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings, and sub-rules (2)(b), (3) and (6) fix four-year time limits and deemed dates of institution for that purpose. Read textually, contextually and in light of its policy, the Rule is relevant only when the Government elects to invoke it against pension; it has no application to nip or stifle criminal proceedings under the IPC or PC Act, and does not whittle down the powers of investigating agencies or the magistrate under the CrPC. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973No court may take cognisance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant not removable without Government sanction while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty, except with previous sanction. The protection extends to serving as well as retired public servants; since no sanction was obtained before cognisance of the IPC offences, their quashing was proper, with liberty to prosecute after obtaining sanction. (¶¶ 19, 20, 26)
- Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Prior to the amendment effective 26 July 2018, Section 19 required previous sanction only for public servants who were in office at the time of taking cognisance. The accused had retired before cognisance was taken, so no sanction was needed and the High Court erred in quashing the PC Act proceedings. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Section 531, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Though the CrPC stands repealed, pending proceedings are expressly permitted to continue under the repealed law; accordingly sanction for prosecuting the IPC offences is to be obtained according to the repealed CrPC. (¶ 26)
- Article 309, Constitution of IndiaRelying on State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, the appellant argued, and the Court accepted in substance, that service rules framed under Article 309 cannot lay down an embargo on criminal prosecution as a condition of service. (¶¶ 8, 16, 17)
Held
- Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 is relatable only to withholding or withdrawal of pension and recovery of pecuniary loss from a pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence; its four-year timelines exist to ensure a pensioner is not harassed or kept waiting indefinitely for retiral benefits. By no rule of construction does it apply to nip pending criminal proceedings in the bud or to stifle them after cognisance merely because its timelines were not met. (¶¶ 12, 16, 17)
- Rule 214 operates in a domain distinct from investigation, submission of a police report and taking of cognisance under the CrPC, and there is no conflict between the two. Even if the Government is disabled from withholding pension by the time-bar, that is no reason to stifle an otherwise valid investigation or cognisance; investigation of a cognisable offence under the IPC, PC Act or analogous law is not barred by Rule 214 or any other statutory intendment. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Section 197 CrPC protects responsible public servants against vexatious prosecution for acts done while acting or purporting to act as public servants, and the protection extends to both serving and retired public servants. Where no sanction was obtained before cognisance of the IPC offences, quashing of the proceedings for those offences was just and proper. (¶ 20)
- Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before its amendment with effect from 26 July 2018, required prior sanction only for public servants in office at the time cognisance was taken; a public servant who had retired before cognisance was not entitled to that protection, and the High Court erred in quashing the PC Act offences for want of sanction. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Since Section 531 BNSS permits pending proceedings to continue under the repealed CrPC, the accused may be prosecuted for IPC offences only after sanction is obtained according to the repealed law. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeals allowed in part; High Court order quashing proceedings for offences under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act set aside and those proceedings restored; quashing of IPC offences for want of Section 197 CrPC sanction upheld, with liberty to prosecute for IPC offences after obtaining sanction under the repealed CrPC; Registry to renumber the special leave petitions and appeals as criminal if the civil registration was a mistake.