Public servant cannot be prosecuted after retirement if sanction was twice refused during their period of service.

The applicant, a Principal at Nutan Secondary School (a grant-in-aid institution), was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹500 from the complainant for school admissions.

An ACB trap was laid on 26.06.2013, where the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed.

While the applicant was in service, the investigating officer sought sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) twice. The school management (competent authority) refused sanction on 28.10.2013 and again on 14.02.2014, concluding that the money was a legitimate development fee.

After the applicant retired, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet, contending that no sanction was required post-retirement. The Special Judge, Dahod, rejected the applicant’s discharge plea on 14.06.2016.

1. Whether a public servant can be prosecuted after retirement if the competent authority had specifically refused sanction for the same offense while the servant was still in service.

2. Whether the lack of valid sanction in this specific procedural history warrants the discharge of the accused.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC regarding revisional jurisdiction.

The court relied heavily on the precedent of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa (2011 Cri.L.J 4306), which established that if sanction is refused by the competent authority while a public servant is in service, they cannot be prosecuted for the same matter after retirement, as such a practice would make the protection of sanction illusory.

The court also noted the standard for discharge, which serves as a constitutional safeguard against trials where no prima facie case is proved.

The Court observed that the school management had twice examined the materials and formal resolutions to decline sanction, finding that the alleged "bribe" was actually a prescribed development fee of ₹250 per student.

The Court reasoned that although the requirement for sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act generally lapses once a public servant retires, an exception must be made when the competent authority has already applied its mind and refused sanction during the term of service.

Following the Chittaranjan Das ratio, the Court held that the prosecution cannot bypass a prior refusal of sanction by simply waiting for the employee to retire. To allow a trial under these circumstances would undermine the statutory protection and the initial decision of the competent authority.

The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Dahod, and discharged/acquitted the applicant of all charges. The applicant was ordered to be set at liberty and his bail bonds were cancelled.