S.17A PC Act Safeguards Public Servants From Frivolous Probe, Approval To Investigate Not Automatic Sanction To Prosecute: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has highlighted that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides a protective shield for public servants from investigations related to decisions made in their official capacity. 

Justice N S Sanjay Gowda clarified that the approval process is designed to balance the interests of the State and its employees.

“The integrity of a public servant is required to be beyond suspicion as in the proverbial adage that “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. If there exists even a shadow of doubt on the integrity of a public servant, it will not only harm his reputation but would also tarnish the entire system of which he is a part. Thus, in such a situation, if the aspersions cast on the integrity of a public servant and an Investigating Officer under the Act harbours a view that an investigation is necessary, it would be in the interests of both the Government and the public servant that such a nagging suspicion is obliterated.”

The petitioner had approached the Court challenging the approval granted by the State Government to conduct an investigation against her under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation pertains to allegations related to a land allotment issue involving the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, had submitted a proposal to the State Government seeking approval to investigate the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Secretary-III in the BDA, along with another individual. The proposal was based on the conversion of land allotments and suspicion of unlawful gains by BDA officials.

The State Government approved the request, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision. The petitioner's main argument was that the approval was granted without due application of mind.

The petitioner argued that the order granting the impugned approval was without application of mind and could not, therefore, be sustained. Apart from mentioning the words “prima facie”, the order did not indicate any serious application of mind or consideration of the material that had been placed before the State Government and it was, hence, untenable.

The bench noted that Section 17A of the Act is a protective shield provided to a public servant from being subjected to an enquiry or investigation by a police officer. In the event of an allegation against a public servant that he had committed an offence under the Act, the law prevents an Investigating Officer from conducting even an investigation or inquiry, unless he has secured the permission of the employer.

“Where the Investigating Officer only has an allegation to act upon and is yet to ascertain the details of commission of the alleged offence and collect evidence, the law creates a prohibition on him from investigating into an offence unless the employer i.e., the State Government accords approval.”

It added, 

“In a sense, a public servant is placed on a pedestal and treated differently as compared to a citizen against whom an allegation of an offence is thrown. The law, thus, grants an extraordinary layer of protection to a public servant to even be subjected to an investigation by a police officer, which is unavailable to an ordinary citizen and is against the basic principle that a police officer is required to act with a sense of promptitude and ascertain whether an offence has been committed, and also collect incriminating material which would establish the crime without loss of time.”

The bench then clarified that Section 17A's purpose is to prevent unnecessary and frivolous investigations against public servants, ensuring that they can discharge their duties without fear or favour.

It added that Section 17A does not require the Investigating Officer to have incriminating evidence at the approval stage, only credible information that justifies an investigation. The State Government's role is to consider whether the Investigating Officer's opinion of the need for an investigation is justified.

Following this, it observed: 

“In this particular case since the public servant is yet to be investigated, the question of considering whether there is any incriminating material or its veracity by the State Government to come to the conclusion that an investigation is warranted or not, would be untenable and stand to logic or reason.”

It also noted that under the second proviso to Section 17A of the Act, is required to convey its decision regarding approval to conduct an investigation within three months (which may be extended by a further period of one month). Then the court said

“It is, therefore, clear that the Legislature has created a time frame for grant of such approval, and this is too obviously to ensure that the State Government does not procrastinate in the matter, and thereby aid the public servant and undermine the Investigating Officer.”

The court highlighted that Section 17A and Section 19, which deals with sanction to prosecute public servants, serve different purposes. Section 19 comes into play after an investigation, requiring concrete evidence, and involves a higher level of scrutiny by the government. It noted that while guidelines and rules are prescribed for granting sanction to prosecute under Section 19, there is no such provision for Section 17A, indicating that the parameters for approval to investigate are different and require more discretion.

“The law has conferred a two-fold protection vis-à-vis the public servants for offences under the Act. The first layer of protection is even before an investigation is conducted, where a prior approval is needed under Section 17A of the Act. The second layer of protection is after the completion of investigation, where sanction to prosecute the public servant is required under Section 19 of the Act.”

Accordingly, it was concluded that the State Government has a wider discretion in considering the Investigating Officer's request for approval under Section 17A. It underscores that an employer must ensure the integrity of its public servants and that the Investigating Officer should have the latitude to request an investigation to clear any doubts.

The court also dismissed the petitioner's contention that materials collected by the Investigating Officer should be meticulously examined before approval. It clarified that the approval to investigate does not imply automatic prosecution and that the process is meant to strike a balance between public servants' protection and the state's interest in ensuring transparency and accountability.

Thus it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate D.R.Ravishankar for Advocate Siri Rajashekar for petitioner.

AGA Prathibha R K for R1, R2.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

Case Title: Shreeroopa v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20132 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order