Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen has directed that sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be considered on a request made by a private complainant without first hearing the public servant concerned. Allowing a writ petition by the complainant, who had been asked by the Vigilance Court to obtain sanction to pursue his complaint, the Court ordered the council’s chief executive to forward an internal enquiry committee report concerning the appointment of the HR Manager-in-Charge and related allegations to the competent authority for consideration of sanction. The authority must hear both the complainant and the concerned public servant and decide within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition arose from a complaint alleging irregularities in the appointment of an official as HR Manager-in-Charge in a statutory body engaged in the promotion of vegetables and fruits in Kerala. The petitioner sought directions for forwarding an internal enquiry report prepared by a committee consisting of three Directors of the organisation to the competent Government authority for consideration of sanction to prosecute certain officials under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Also Read: No Re-Notification Needed For Vijayawada ACB To Operate As A Police Station After Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation; Supreme Court Restores FIRs Quashed For Lack Of Jurisdiction

The petitioner relied on an order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), directing him to obtain sanction for prosecution before proceeding further with a vigilance complaint. It was contended that the enquiry committee report, obtained under the Right to Information Act, would aid the sanctioning authority in taking a decision.

The fifth respondent opposed the petition, asserting that his appointment was lawful and that a separate writ petition challenging the appointment was pending. It was also pointed out that a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings had already been dismissed. The dispute before the Court was limited to whether the enquiry report should be forwarded and how the sanctioning authority must proceed while considering sanction for prosecution.

The Court identified the central issue as the entitlement to a right of hearing at the stage of consideration of sanction for prosecution. The Court noted that the petitioner approached the competent authority strictly in compliance with the order passed by the Vigilance Court.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing sanction for prosecution and recorded: “Proviso to sub-section (ii) of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, 2018 stipulates that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant.”

The Court further stated that “at the time of considering sanction, right of hearing is ensured by this provision.” It was observed that the sanctioning authority “should not grant sanction without providing an opportunity to the aggrieved person.”

With reference to the objections raised by the fifth respondent, the Court recorded that “the 5th respondent can make his submission before the sanctioning authority as well.”

The Court concluded that, at the present stage, there was “no reason to disallow the prayer in the petition” and held that forwarding of the enquiry report would not prejudice the statutory safeguards available to the concerned public servant.

Also Read: Civil Decree For Loan Recovery Doesn’t Negate PC Act Conspiracy, Misappropriation Liability; Criminal Culpability Stands Independent: Kerala High Court

The Court ordered that “In the result, this petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to forward Ext.P5 enquiry report to the 3rd respondent for considering grant of sanction. It is specifically made clear that while adverting the question of grant of sanction, the authority shall hear the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent in terms of the proviso to sub-section (ii) of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, 2018, without fail and to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Shinto Thomas, Sri. Ram Vinayak, Sri. Mohamed Aslam V.P., Smt. Sona Vijayan K., Smt. Ayana L. Biju

For the Respondents: Sri. P.A. Aziz, Standing Counsel; Smt. Rekha S., Senior Government Pleader; Sri. Rajesh A., Special Government Pleader; Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. (Senior Advocate); Sri. K.R. Ganesh; Sri. Adarsh Babu C.S.; Smt. Ahsana E.; Sri. Ashik J. Varghese

Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:97653
Case Number: WP(C) No. 39191 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen