VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 387
767
and ordered recovery of Rs.1000, the amount found missing in his
custody.
The Charged Officer asked for the assistance of one M.
Mohan Rao, Sub-Postmaster at Santhapeta in Ongole district, a far
off place and insisted on having him alone and refused to take the
assistance of any other employee posted at headquarters or at the
place where the inquiry is held. In the circumstances, the Tribunal
held, it did not amount to denial of help of a defence assistant and
denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Tribunal further held that normally there will be no need for
two penalties at one time but the penalty of recovery from the pay of
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by an official by negligence
or breach of order, can be imposed along with other penalties.
(387)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
Sanction under sec. 6 P.C.Act, 1947 (corresponding
to sec. 19 of P.C. Act, 1988) not necessary for
prosecution of a public servant who ceased to be a
public servant on date of taking cognizance of
offence.
R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State,
1995 Cri.L.J. KER 963
The High Court of Kerala held that no sanction is required
under sec. 6 P.C. Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 19 P.C.Act, 1988)
for prosecuting an accused public servant before a special judge
when he has ceased to be a public servant on the date of taking
cognizance of the offence by the said court. Section 6 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 says that no court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under sec. 161 or sec. 165 IPC
or under sub-sec.(2) of sec. 5 of the P.C. Act, 1947 (corresponding
to