Patna, Dec. 19: The high court has ticked off the state vigilance investigation bureau for obtaining prosecution sanction against corrupt officials from non-entitled authorities under wrong sections.

According to the provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act, only the appointing authority can grant sanction to prosecute the gazetted officers. But the bureau, sources said, obtained prosecution sanction from wrong authorities in over 100 trap cases in the past five years.

The high court learnt about it while hearing a petition filed by a former child development project officer (CDPO).

Take the case of a former CDPO of Muzaffarpur. A vigilance team netted Shankar Prasad, then posted as CDPO at Motipur, while taking a bribe of Rs 1,500 in 2006.

Though Prasad belonged to the social welfare department, the bureau obtained sanction to prosecute him in the case lodged under Prevention of Corruption Act from the law department, which was not Prasad’s appointing authority.

On December 6, 2006, Prasad challenged the prosecution sanction granted by the law department in the special vigilance court at Muzaffarpur. But it was rejected. The matter was later placed before the special vigilance court (trap), Patna, where it met the same fate.

Subsequently Prasad, a resident of Narkatiyaganj in West Champaran district, filed a petition in the high court, challenging the prosecution sanction obtained by the bureau against him.

Rana Pratap Singh, the advocate appearing on behalf of Prasad, argued that the law department was not the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction in the case because the petitioner belonged to the social welfare department.

Hearing the petition, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed, “The order of cognisance dated June 29, 2007 passed by the learned special judge, vigilance, Muzaffarpur in special vigilance case number 45 of 2006 as well as the order dated September 10, 2008, whereby the petitioner’s application of discharge was rejected by the learned special judge, vigilance (trap) Bihar, Patna, are hereby quashed.”

Justice Singh, however, gave some respite to the bureau.

In his order passed on December 5, 2011, Justice Singh said: “The present order will not preclude the prosecuting agency to obtain a valid sanction order from the competent authority and to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law.”

A practising lawyer of Patna High Court, Arun Kumar, said: “How can a particular department (read the law department) be the appointing authority of public servants belonging to different departments of the state government? In fact, only the department that is authorised to dismiss public servants of the department concerned can grant permission to prosecute him/her.”

Additional director-general (vigilance) Pramod Kumar Thakur said the bureau had already requested the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction against the public servants arrested under Prevention of Corruption Act.