Prior sanction mandatory for open inquiry against govt

Image
Press Trust of India Mumbai
Last Updated : Apr 09 2015 | 6:42 PM IST
Maharashtra government today told the Bombay High Court that it is mandatory to procure sanction from them before initiating an open inquiry against any of their officers or employees.
In an affidavit filed before a division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice G S Kulkarni, the state government said that prior sanction is required to initiate open inquiry against government employees of all groups.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by activist Ankur Patil challenging a March 12, 1981 circular of the government which says prior sanction is a must to initiate an inquiry against a public servant.
Patil had claimed that the 1981 circular was infructuous in view of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Subramaniam Swamy versus CBI.
The Supreme Court had laid down in its judgement on May 6 last year that every public servant, who is facing allegations of corruption or an inquiry for corrupt offences, shall be treated equally and similarly under law.
The government today in its affidavit said that based on the 1981 circular another circular has been issued on March 3 this year by which if allegations of corruption are received against All India Services Officers, Heads of Department and Group A officers, then sanction must be taken from the competent authority in the government before initiating open inquiry.
"Whenever allegations of corruption against state government employees of Group B, C and D are received, the Anti-Corruption Bureau should scrutinise them to ascertain if there is any substance. If yes, then a discreet inquiry should be made and if it is satisfied that there is enough material to justify an open inquiry, then the same can be done after acquiring permission from the competent authority," the affidavit filed by V M Bhat, Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, said.
It further states that the authority shall take a decision on whether to give sanction to open an inquiry or not within 90 days of receiving the proposal. If no decision is taken within 90 days, then ACB shall presume that sanction has been accorded to conduct an open inquiry.
The High Court today admitted Patil's petition and posted it for final hearing in July.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 09 2015 | 6:42 PM IST

Next Story