Justice beyond departmental probes

HC ruling reaffirms that departmental exoneration cannot stop criminal proceedings in corruption cases.

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has stripped away a long-misused shield that allowed government officials to evade legal scrutiny for acts of corruption under the cover of departmental exoneration.

It has unequivocally held that a bureaucrat cannot escape criminal proceedings where a prima facie case points to loss to the public exchequer. The case concerns allegations against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri during her tenure as Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru in 2021. She is accused of procuring 14.71 lakh eco-friendly cloth bags at an inflated price of Rs 52 a piece, far above prevailing market rates of around Rs 13, causing an estimated loss of Rs 5.88 crore.

The charges are aggravated by claims that funds earmarked for welfare schemes were diverted, bypassing the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act. Yet, the state government twice refused sanction for investigation, citing her exoneration in a departmental inquiry.

By setting aside this refusal, Justice M Nagaprasanna has reaffirmed a fundamental legal principle: departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, which underscored that internal inquiries – based on the standard of “preponderance of probabilities” – cannot foreclose criminal investigation, where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

At the heart of the issue lies the requirement of prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Intended as a safeguard to protect honest officials from vexatious litigation, it has become a double-edged sword. In practice, sanction is often granted or withheld selectively, insulating officials and, at times, their political bosses. The conflict of interest is inherent: the authority empowered to permit investigation may itself be implicated in the decision under scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against such misuse. In a recent split verdict on Section 17A, Justice K V Viswanathan upheld the provision but read it down, clarifying that the government cannot have the final word.

He ruled that any request for a probe must be filtered through an independent body like the Lokayukta or Lokpal, whose recommendation should be binding. When the government acts as the judge in its own cause, the sanction regime moves away from being a safety valve for the honest and becomes a sanctuary for the corrupt.

The power to grant or deny sanction must be vested in an independent authority, and not with political or bureaucratic hierarchies with a vested interest in the outcome. Only then will the ends of justice be served.