SBI authority cannot finally reject CBI prosecution sanction contrary to CVC and DoPT process, Allahabad High Court says

The petitioner, a former branch manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was charge-sheeted by the CBI for alleged irregularities in negotiating export bills, including offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The competent bank authority had granted sanction for his prosecution on 29 September 2021.

After the trial court framed charges, the petitioner challenged the sanction before a Division Bench, which dismissed his writ petition.

He subsequently sought a declaration from the trial court that the sanction was illegal; the trial court left the question of validity and prejudice to be decided after evidence.

In this petition, he challenged the sanction and several trial-court orders, alleging, among other things, delay and non-application of mind.

The sanctioning authority had been examined and cross-examined as a prosecution witness.

Whether the petitioner could renew before a Single Judge the challenge to the sanction order after the Division Bench had dismissed his earlier writ petition raising the same challenge.

Whether the sanction order was liable to be set aside for delay or alleged non-application of mind, including on the basis of the sanctioning authority’s cross-examination.

Under Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, where a sanction order exists, an allegation of invalidity for non-application of mind is ordinarily to be raised and determined during trial; absence of sanction is distinct and may be challenged at the threshold.

Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India recognises that grounds such as lack of material, bias, or lack of competence may be raised during trial.

Director, CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aswal states that validity is tested in light of prejudice to the accused, a factual question generally unsuitable for determination under Section 482 CrPC or in writ proceedings.

Under Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, non-compliance with the prescribed sanction timeline does not, by itself, require quashing the criminal proceedings.

The Court also considered the SBI Vigilance Manual and the DoPT Office Memoranda of 1 March 2019 and 2 December 2020 concerning referral to and consideration of CVC advice in sanction matters.

The Court held that the petitioner had already challenged the same sanction before a Division Bench and, having been unsuccessful, could not relitigate the issue before the trial court and then a Single Judge; pursuing those successive proceedings amounted to forum shopping and abuse of process.

The trial court had not foreclosed the sanction challenge but had left validity and prejudice for assessment on the trial evidence, consistently with the cited Supreme Court authorities.

The Court also rejected delay as an independent ground for quashing the proceedings under Vijay Rajmohan.

On the evidence then available, the sanctioning authority testified that he had examined the relevant material and applied his independent mind; the Court considered the bank’s vigilance procedures and applicable DoPT guidance and found no basis to conclude that the sanction was granted without independent application of mind.

It imposed costs of ₹50,000, payable to the Registry within 30 days, with recovery as arrears of land revenue in default; the amount was directed to be transferred to Children’s Home (Girls), Lucknow.