Sanction Is Mandatory for Prosecution of Public Servant Even While on Deputation: Supreme Court Affirms Protection Under Section 197 CrPC for Government Officers on Deputation

“Deputation Does Not Sever Status as Public Servant” – In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) concerning government servants on deputation. The Court held that an officer who is on deputation continues to retain the status of a public servant and cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction from the competent authority.

The judgment delivers a crucial interpretation of public service law, especially with respect to deputation and the protective cloak under Section 197 CrPC against unwarranted prosecution.

The respondent, Ramesh Chander Diwan, was originally appointed by the Government of Punjab and later deputed to serve as Executive Engineer (Public Health), Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR in 2014 alleging corruption and conspiracy, accusing him of altering tender conditions to cause a wrongful loss of ₹13.66 crores to the exchequer.

Although charges were framed under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the respondent moved for discharge on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained. While the Special Court rejected the plea, the High Court partly allowed his revision petition, discharging him from IPC offences for want of sanction but retained charges under the PC Act.

Both the CBI and the original complainant challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.

The key legal issue was whether the respondent, having been deputed from the Punjab Government to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, ceased to be a “public servant” for the purposes of Section 197 CrPC, and hence whether sanction was required to prosecute him.

The CBI argued that once the respondent was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation, he no longer remained in the service of the Punjab Government, and hence sanction was not necessary.

Rejecting this contention, the Court observed: “We are of the considered opinion… that the respondent while rendering service for the State of Punjab as well as the administration of the Union Territory was a public servant covered by clause (a) of the 12th description in Section 21, IPC.”

The Court clarified that deputation is a temporary service arrangement where the disciplinary control remains with the parent department unless expressly transferred:

“There can be no severance of relationship with the parent department… If the rules indicate that disciplinary control is retained by the parent department, the receiving department would have no jurisdiction.”

Further, the Court relied on precedent to emphasize the rationale of Section 197 CrPC:

“Public servants have to be protected from harassment in the discharge of official duties while ordinary citizens not so engaged do not require this safeguard.” — Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, (1955) 2 SCR 925

The Court found that the respondent’s deputation was repeatedly extended by the Governor of Punjab and that there was no evidence of absorption or severance from the parent service.

“The Governor of Punjab extended the deputation period… thereby temporarily placing the respondent’s service at the disposal of the Municipal Corporation.”

As the disciplinary authority remained the Government of Punjab, the Court concluded:

“Despite his assignment on deputation to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, he continued to remain a public servant for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 197, CrPC, being removable from office by an appropriate authority in the Government of Punjab.”

Accordingly, the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent from IPC offences for lack of sanction was affirmed.

This ruling strengthens the procedural safeguards available to public servants under Section 197 CrPC and reiterates that the protection applies even during deputation unless explicitly removed by statutory provisions or absorption. The judgment underscores the need for prosecuting authorities like the CBI to obtain mandatory sanction before initiating criminal proceedings against deputed officers.

“We find no reason to accept Mr. Raju’s contention that the respondent ceased to be a public servant upon being sent on deputation.”

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals while reserving liberty for the CBI to seek appropriate sanction under the prevailing procedural laws, if so advised.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025