Sanction for corruption prosecution must come from the removal authority and reflect conscious consideration of relevant materials.

Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. On the facts, the Standing Committee, not the Administrator or State Government, was the competent sanctioning authority, so the objection to competence failed. Sanction is also an administrative act that must rest on relevant materials and a conscious application of mind. Because the record did not clearly show whether the inquiry material and the Commissioner's recommendation were actually considered, the finding on validity of sanction could not be sustained and the matter was remitted to the Special Judge for fresh inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Standing Committee was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the sanction order was vitiated for want of proper application of mind and consideration of relevant materials.

Issue (i): Whether the Standing Committee was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The statutory test under Section 19 is whether sanction is granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from service. The appellant was appointed by the Standing Committee under the municipal law governing the Corporation, and the Administrator was only an ad hoc arrangement. The authority competent to appoint and remove the appellant was therefore the Standing Committee, not the Administrator or the State Government.

Conclusion: The Standing Committee was the competent authority to accord sanction, and the appellant's objection on competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction order was vitiated for want of proper application of mind and consideration of relevant materials.

Analysis: Grant of sanction is an administrative function, but it must be based on relevant materials and a conscious decision by the sanctioning authority. The order of sanction should show, or be supported by proof showing, that the authority considered the material placed before it and reached prima facie satisfaction that the facts disclosed an offence. In the present case, the resolution and surrounding record did not clearly show whether the relevant inquiry material and the Commissioner's recommendation were actually before the Standing Committee and considered by it. In such a situation, a proper inquiry by the trial court was necessary.

Conclusion: The existing finding on sanction could not be sustained without a proper inquiry, and the matter required remand to the Special Judge for fresh consideration of the validity of sanction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the competence of the sanctioning authority failed, but the finding on validity of sanction was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh inquiry before the Special Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant, and its validity depends on a conscious consideration of relevant materials by that authority, which may require proof beyond the face of the sanction order.

---