IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2007 Central Bureau of Investigation …… Petitioner-Revisionist Versus Shri Rakesh Mittal …… Respondent …….. Mr.U.K.Uniyal, Senior Counsel with Mr.Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Agarwal, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.K.Gautam, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. The short issue, the only issue, which falls for consideration in this case is about the applicability of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (1946 Act for short). Section 6A reads thus: “6A. Approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation.- (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to- (a) the employees of Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(49 of 1988).” A plain reading of Section 6A clearly suggests that there is a specific bar about conducting any inquiry or investigation with respect to any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (1988 Act for short) except with the previous approval of the Central Government with respect to the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary 2 and above. In other words, Section 6A very clearly stipulates that if any inquiry or investigation under 1988 Act is intended to be started against an employee of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above, the previous approval of the Central Government is mandatory. The respondent at the relevant time was posted as Additional Director General of Police in the State of Uttarakhand. He belongs to the IPS cadre of Uttarakhand State. Even though his appointment was made by the President of India at the relevant time after his selection by the Union Public Service Commission, the issue which arises for consideration is whether at the relevant time he was an employee of the Central Government or he was the employee of the State Government. As far as this Court is concerned, the issue poses no problem because by the mere fact of his having been posted as Additional Director General of Police, Uttarakhand at the relevant time and he having been allocated to the State cadre of Uttarakhand, he could not be deemed, considered or treated as an employee of the Central Government. The respondent was an employee of the Government of Uttarakhand. He was working in the capacity of Additional Director General of Police, Uttarakhand at the relevant time. Therefore, the respondent at the relevant time was working in the State of Uttarakhand in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttarakahand and not in connection with the affairs of the Central Government. The learned Court below was clearly in error in holding that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was applicable or attracted in this case and, therefore, demanding that previous approval of the Central Government should have been brought on record for continuation of the case. The petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with all the consequences. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 17.09.2008 A 3 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA No. 5015 of 2008 MCC No. 930 of 2008 in Civil Revision No. 19 of 2005 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited …… Petitioner-Revisionist Versus Judge Small Causes/ Addl. Distt. Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Dehradun and others …… Respondents …….. Mr.U.K.Uniyal, Senior Counsel with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent 2 and 4. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. CLMA No. 5015 of 2008 (Delay Condonation Application) For the reasons stated, the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned even though the delay of more than two years has not been satisfactorily explained. The application stands disposed of. MCC No. 930 of 2008 (Restoration Application) For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Civil Revision Petition No. 19 of 2005 is restored to its original number along with interim order subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund in two weeks from today. (2) The fresh particulars of respondent no. 3 shall be filed in the Court as undertaken by Mr. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner during the course of this week. If this is not done, 5 the revision petition shall stand dismissed without any reference to the Bench. (3) As far as respondent no. 4 is concerned, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate today appears for him, accepts notice and waives service. He undertakes to file Vakalatnama on his behalf within four weeks. (4) After fresh particulars of respondent no. 3 are filed, notice shall be issued for his service and it shall be ensured by the Registry that the service is effected without any delay. List the revision petition in the week commencing 20th October, 2008. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 17.09.2008 A