https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314448 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. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:44:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314448 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314448