ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) AN application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to quash the proceeding being Special Case No. 1 of 1997 pending before the Special Judge, 5th Court, Calcutta is the subject matter.
(2.) THE case in short is that petitioner is working as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (presently under suspension) in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta. The establishment is governed by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 under the Labour Ministry, Government of India. The petitioner was occupying a group 'A' Gazetted post. A charge sheet was submitted against him on 28.1.97 alleging that he was caught red handed when he was about to accept money from A.K. Banik and accordingly the charge -sheet was submitted under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 after obtaining proper sanction in accordance with section 19(1) (c) of the said Act. It is alleged that the relevant time he was also acting as Recovery Officer besides Assistant Public Prosecutor in terms of section 25 (1) (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. His case is that he was appointed by Government of India and as such charge sheet submitted on the basis of a sanction order under section 19(1) (c) of the P.C. Act is not in accordance with law. His further case is that under the Employees Provident Fund Act the Central Board is authorised to appoint Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and not the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the so -called sanction is not valid in accordance with law, hence the application.
(3.) THE prayer is being resisted by opposite party No. 1 and also opposite party No. 2. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Advocate representing the parties I is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that since the petitioner is working in connection with the affairs of the Union, he is not removable from his office same by or with the sanction of the Central Government. It is his contention that sanction order issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner under section 19 (1) (c) of the said Act is bad in law. He has drawn my attention to a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 26.12.95 whereby the petitioner was directed to exercise the powers of Recovery Officer with respect to the West Bengal State and Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with immediate effect. He has also drawn my attention to some portions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The term 'Recovery Officer' has been defined in section 1 (K) (b) as an Officer of the Central Government, the State Government of the Board of Trustees constituted under section 5 (A) who may be authorised by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to exercise the powers of Recovery Officer under the Act. Attention has also been drawn to section 5(B) of the Act which empowers Central Government to constitute for a State Board of Trustees to the mentioned as State Board. In terms of section 5 (D) of the Act, Central Government is to appoint a Central Provident Fund Commissioner who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Board and shall be subject to the General Control of the Board. My attention has also been drawn to section 13(1) of the said Act which says that the appropriate Government by the notification in the Official Gazette is to appoint Inspectors. Reference has also been made in section 24(A) sub -section 2 of the Act which says that Central Board may by resolution empower its Chairman to appoint such Officers and employees other than those mentioned in sub -section 1 and 2 of section 5(D) as he may consider fit and proper. Reference has also been made to Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 which empowers the Central Board by resolution delegate to its Chairman or the Commissioner or both to appoint such officers and employees other than those mentioned in sub -sections 2 and 3 of section 5(D). Sub -section 3 of section 5(D) of the Act empowers the Central Board to appoint various types of officers including Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners. From the above it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in the facts and circumstances cannot be the sanctioning authority for the purpose of section 19 with regard to the petitioner since he is working in connection with the affairs of the Union and therefore sanction of the Central Government is necessary.;