Sanction refusal during service bars later prosecution after retirement for the same alleged offence.

Refusal of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority while a public servant is still in service prevents later prosecution after retirement for the same alleged offence, because the statutory protection attached to sanction cannot be defeated by delaying proceedings until service ends. The same principle is stated to apply to a connected matter involving materially identical facts. In the related matter, no final adjudication was recorded and time was granted to place additional documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether a public servant can be prosecuted after retirement where sanction for prosecution had been refused while he was still in service.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the effect of a prior refusal of sanction by the competent authority during service. The Court applied the governing principle that the statutory protection attached to sanction cannot be rendered illusory by waiting until retirement, because the prosecution was initiated despite the earlier refusal. The same reasoning governed the connected appeal, which involved materially identical facts. In the other matter, no final adjudication was recorded; time was granted to place additional documents.

Conclusion: Prosecution after retirement was held impermissible where sanction had been refused while the public servant was in service.

Ratio Decidendi: Refusal of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority during service bars subsequent prosecution after retirement for the same alleged offence.

---