Decide on sanction for prosecution against Govt officers within 6 months: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the cognizance taken by a Magistrate court in 24 criminal cases against a former executive officer of a Panchayat as there was no sanction obtained for prosecution from the competent authority in any of the casesThe Court also directed the authorities to decide on granting sanction for prosecution against government officers within six months of such requests being madeIn the wake of such litigation being generated on indecisiveness of respective Competent Authorities either on the ignorance of the Investigating Agency in not requesting for sanction or the indecisiveness of the respective Competent Authorities in not passing necessary orders I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Competent Authority shall henceforth decide on the requisition sent by the Investigating agency with an outer limit of six months if not earlier as only on account of want of sanction the proceedings are quashed even in cases where corruption is the allegation it saidM S Faneesha was the executive officer of Arakalagudu Taluk Panchayat in Hassan district He is currently working as a senior lecturer in Tavaradevarakoppalu When he was the panchayat officer in 200910 MGNREGA works were implemented in Arakalagudu It was alleged that Faneesha had executed works without clearances from respective departments and caused loss to the GovernmentAfter five years of investigation charge sheets were filed against him in the 24 cases in 2016Also Read Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging validity of 1991 law on religious placesA departmental inquiry was also initiated simultaneously and the inquiry officer held in 2020 that the charges against him were not proved and no loss was caused to the State exchequerBased on that Faneesha approached the HC against the criminal cases in 2022Justice M Nagaprasanna heard the batch of 24 criminal petitions and gave his judgment recentlyThe Court found that the sanction for prosecuting a public servant from the competent authority was not obtained in any of the 24 cases filed against FaneeshaThe HC said that The State or the Competent Authority cannot sit over the files for sanction for months together and contend not taking any decision is also a decisionThe Court said that instead of the Government putting up vehement opposition before this Court through its counsel it would be imperative for the Competent Authority to pass orders on the requisitions for such sanction either granting or refusing and the necessary Investigating Agencies send such requisitions whenever necessaryWhile the cognizance was quashed the HC said that the trial court shall proceed with the proceedings in all these criminal cases against the petitioner only after the prosecution places on record sanction for prosecuting the petitioner before the concerned Court from the hands of the Competent AuthorityThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever