Mandatory sanction procedure for Head of Department prosecutions under the Transaction of Business Rules rendered ministerial sanction invalid.

Sanction to prosecute a Head of Department under the Prevention of Corruption Act had to follow the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, read with Section 19. Because the Chief Engineer could be removed only by the State Government, the sanction proposal was required to move through the prescribed governmental process, including Cabinet consideration and the Governor's approval. A sanction order issued only by the Minister-in-charge did not comply with that mandatory procedure and was therefore without authority of law. On that basis, the prosecution founded on the invalid sanction could not be sustained and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether sanction for prosecution of a Head of Department under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had to be accorded by the competent authority under the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, and whether sanction granted by the Minister-in-charge was valid.

Analysis: The petitioner was a Chief Engineer and, therefore, a Head of Department. Under the statutory scheme, sanction to prosecute a State servant who is not removable except by the State Government had to be considered in the manner prescribed by the Transaction of Business Rules, 1977. Reading Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Rules 20(1)(a), 21, 23, 27, 28, 29(2), 37 and 40 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977, and the relevant Schedules, the decision on sanction for such a post was required to move through the Cabinet and thereafter the Governor. The order issued only by the Minister-in-charge did not satisfy that statutory procedure. The Court also held that the decisions relied on by the respondent were distinguishable because they were rendered without reference to the relevant Transaction of Business Rules.

Conclusion: The sanction accorded by the Minister-in-charge was without authority of law and was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings based on the invalid sanction could not be sustained and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sanction to prosecute a Head of Department is governed by the Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, the competent authority must act in the manner mandated by those rules, and a sanction issued by an authority not so empowered is invalid and vitiates the prosecution.

---