https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193792 Sanction for prosecution of a public servant was upheld because the competent cadre-controlling authority acted within the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and properly applied its mind before granting approval under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier departmental notings, including differing views from vigilance and personnel departments, did not amount to a final decision and did not vitiate the sanction. The Central Vigilance Commission's advice was only a relevant input in the process. Minor procedural irregularities were insufficient to invalidate the sanction absent failure of justice. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 08:10:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193792 Sanction for prosecution of a public servant was upheld because the competent cadre-controlling authority acted within the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and properly applied its mind before granting approval under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier departmental notings, including differing views from vigilance and personnel departments, did not amount to a final decision and did not vitiate the sanction. The Central Vigilance Commission's advice was only a relevant input in the process. Minor procedural irregularities were insufficient to invalidate the sanction absent failure of justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193792