Refusal of sanction during service bars later prosecution after retirement on the same allegations; process held abusive.

Sanction protection for a public servant cannot be defeated by prosecuting the person after retirement when the competent authority had already refused sanction during service, even on reconsideration. The earlier refusal remains legally material because the safeguard is meant to prevent vexatious or frivolous prosecution and cannot be rendered illusory by waiting until retirement. On the facts, the attempt to proceed on the same allegations was also treated as an abuse of process, so the prosecution was held not maintainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution could continue after the competent authority had refused sanction while the accused was in service and the accused was later prosecuted after retirement.

Analysis: Sanction is intended to protect public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution and to ensure that the protection is not rendered illusory. Where sanction was sought during service and expressly refused by the competent authority, a later attempt to prosecute the same person after retirement cannot bypass that refusal merely because no sanction is needed after retirement. The earlier refusal, especially when repeated after reconsideration, remains material and the criminal process cannot be used to defeat the statutory safeguard. On the facts, the Court also found the prosecution to be an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not maintainable and was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: If sanction for prosecution is refused by the competent authority while the accused is a public servant, the accused cannot later be prosecuted after retirement on the same allegations by treating retirement as curing the earlier refusal.

---