A PWD engineer charged with corruption has brought two State Governments in the Supreme Court to decide on a question whether prosecution sanction once granted against a public servant will cease to have effect after his transfer to another State. Incidentally, both the States are BJP-ruled.
The case related to one Madho Singh Kushwaha, who allegedly diverted public funds in favour of a contractor in 2002-03. At the relevant time, Kushwaha was a sub-engineer with Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department at Morena. The investigation got over in 2007. But even before a chargesheet could be filed, Kushwaha opted for the cadre in Chhattisgarh, a State carved out of Madhya Pradesh in 2000. He joined the PWD Department of Dhamtari Division in the same post on December 16, 2006.
The MP Government charged Kushwaha and another official under various Sections of IPC and relevant provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. It was found that he along with an Executive Engineer enhanced costs of construction by raising forged bills ending up paying excess amount to the contractor from the public exchequer. The Madhya Pradesh Government found the case fit to grant sanction to prosecute Kushwaha on February 23, 2012 pursuant to which he approached the Madhya Pradesh HC bench at Gwalior.
In the meantime, the MP Police wrote to the concerned authorities in Chhattisgarh to seek permission for arresting the accused engineer. However, Chhattisgarh refused to grant sanction for his prosecution by an order of March 15, 2011.
This gave more fodder for Kushwaha’s petition in the HC where he argued that since his appointment in Chhattisgarh State, sanction granted by MP was meaningless. The High Court agreed with him after it referred to Section 19(2) of MP State Reorganization Act, 2000. It stated, “After allocation of an employee to any particular State, the services rendered by the employee prior to allocation shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the State to which he is allocated.”
On a reading of this provision, the HC concluded, “In the present case, the services rendered by the petitioner in the state of MP, after his allocation to state of Chhattisgarh, be deemed to be rendered in the state of Chhattisgarh and in that circumstance, the state of Chhattisgarh is competent to accord sanction in regard to prosecution of the petitioner for the offence committed by him under the PC Act prior to his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh.”
The order sealed the fate of investigation conducted by the MP Police. But the state government did not take it lying down. The MP government through advocate Saurabh Mishra approached the apex court to appeal against the HC verdict of August 27, 2013. It said, “At the time of committal of offence, the respondent was posted in state of MP, wherein he misused his official position and caused loss to the exchequer of Government of MP. Therefore, state of MP is competent authority to grant the sanction and state of Chhattisgarh has nothing to do in this matter.”
The bench headed by Justice Madan B lokur has admitted the appeal and decided to examine the important question of law involved between the two states. Kushwaha was asked to submit his response by August 11.