NHAI cannot refuse prosecution sanction after CVC recommends approval; disagreement must go to DoPT, Allahabad High Court rules

The CBI alleged that Brijendra Singh, an NHAI manager, demanded and accepted ₹50,000 from a petrol-pump applicant in connection with a No Objection Certificate, and that the petitioner, an NHAI Deputy Manager, was involved.

During a controlled call after the trap, Brijendra Singh referred to money having been given; the petitioner responded that he would speak to someone.

The CBI filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

NHAI’s competent authority recorded internal communications in February 2025 expressing reasons against sanction, but later granted sanction on 6 October 2025 after receiving CVC advice.

The Special Judge took cognizance and summoned the petitioner on 17 December 2025.

The petitioner sought to quash the sanction, cognizance order and related proceedings.

Whether the February 2025 communications amounted to operative orders refusing sanction, such that the October 2025 sanction was an impermissible review of an earlier decision.

Whether NHAI could grant sanction after receiving CVC advice, and whether the sanction was invalid for want of fresh material or independent application of mind.

Whether the sanction, cognizance and summoning orders were liable to be quashed because the alleged conversation did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.

Whether the revocation of the petitioner’s suspension affected the validity of the criminal prosecution.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act governs sanction for prosecution; under Section 19(3), an error, omission or irregularity in sanction does not justify halting proceedings absent failure of justice.

The Court applied Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA and Vivek Batra v. Union of India for the principle that internal file notings or communications do not become operative orders unless approved by the final decision-maker and communicated; it also relied on Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi v. State concerning internal communications on sanction.

Under Section 8(1)(g) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, read with the DoPT Office Memorandum of 1 March 2019, the authority considering sanction must take account of CVC advice and, where it proposes not to follow a CVC recommendation to prosecute, refer the matter for further decision.

Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI establishes that CVC advice is advisory but a valuable input, and the final decision must reflect the competent authority’s independent application of mind.

Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and State of Bihar v. Rajmangal Ram address sanction irregularities and failure of justice.

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi holds that departmental proceedings do not, by themselves, determine the validity of a separate criminal prosecution.

The Court held that the February communications were internal communications to NHAI’s Chief Vigilance Officer, not formal, communicated orders refusing sanction; the October sanction therefore did not review an earlier operative refusal.

It further held that the DoPT guidelines required the authority to consider CVC advice and provided for referral where the authority proposed to reject a CVC recommendation; NHAI’s acceptance of the CVC advice did not, in the Court’s view, invalidate the sanction, particularly as the sanction order recorded consideration of the complaint, verification report, pre- and post-trap memoranda and witness statements.

Any alleged defect in sanction did not warrant quashing absent demonstrated failure of justice.

At the cognizance stage, the court need only find a prima facie case: the controlled-call transcript and surrounding material, read together, were sufficient to proceed to trial, notwithstanding the petitioner’s objection concerning the word “paisa”.

Finally, suspension and criminal prosecution were separate proceedings, and revocation of suspension did not undermine the prosecution.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed; the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial court’s determination on the merits.