P.N. Bakshi, J.

1. Ram Das Sharma Kaushik was working as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in Nagarpalika Shikohabad in November 1976. He was appointed Sanitary Inspector under the U. P. Palika Public Health Service on 3-1-1968. This appointment was made by the Deputy Secretary of the Local Self Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,

2. The prosecution case is that on 27th November, 1976 Ravindra Kumar Misra, resident of Mohalla Misrana town Shikohabad, district Mainpuri moved an application before the S.P. Vigilence Agra alleging that Ram Dass Sharma Kaushik has settled a monthly payment from each and every milk vendor of the town and that he was pressurising him (Ravindra Kumar Misra) to pay Rs. 35/-per month, otherwise he would not be able to sell milk in Shikohabad and would be challaned. Under compulsion he had agreed to offer Rs. 25/- as the first instalment. The S.P. Vigilence directed the Deputy Superintendent of police Sri Rumal Singh to take necessary action. A trap was laid the same day and the accused was caught red handed accepting the bribe from Ravindra Kumar Misra. After completion of formalities a report was lodged by the Dy. S.P. Sri Rumal Singh against the accused under Section 161 IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A case was duly registered and investigated. On 4-2-1978 Sri Mahendra Vir Singh Deshi, Director of Local Bodies U.P. granted sanction for the prosecution of the accused for the aforesaid offences, vide Annexure E. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 12-8-1978 the accused moved an application before the II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for discharging him. This application has been rejected on 11-4-1979. Hence the instant application has been filed ill this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings.

3. I have heard counsel for the applicant at a very great length and have also perused the application, affidavits and the annexures filed in this case. Counsel or the applicant has made two submissions as under.

4. The first submission is that the applicant had been appointed by the State Government viz. the Deputy Secretary to the Local Self Government. As such, the State Government was the only competent authority who could dismiss him, and therefore, the State Government alone had the power to grant sanction for the prosecution of the applicant under Section 161 IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reference in this connection is made to Annexure E which is the order granting sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is clear from its perusal that the sanction for prosecution has been accorded by Sri Mahendra Vir Singh Deshi, Director. The question is whether sanction by the Director was in accordance with law

5. The accused is admittedly in the service of U. P. Palika Public Health Subordinate Service. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has centralised the U. P. Palika Service and Rules were framed thereunder, applicable to all the Nagar Palikas and the Municipalities, which are called the U. P. Palika Centralised Service Rules, 1966. Under Rule 37(2) the competent authority to impose punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank on the officers of the Palikas Centralised Services shall be the State Government. Under Rule 42 the Government may delegate its powers and functions under these rules to the director of Local Bodies or any other authority as it deems fit. In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 42, the State Government delegated its power of appointment, suspension, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank to the Director of Local Bodies for the Centralised services of the Servants of the Palika getting a salary upto Rs. 500/-vide G. O. No. 2743/11-1-74-184/74 dated 27-12-1974 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. The accused applicant is in the cadre of servants drawing less than Rs. 500/- per month and, therefore, this G. O. was fully applicable to him. The main controversy centres round the interpretation of para 2 of the aforesaid G. O. which runs as follows: "(2) uprokt pad dharko ko Uttar Pradesh Palika (kendriyot) Sewa Neamawali 1966 kay Niyam 37 Kay adheen nilambit karnay aivam padachyut karnay ya sewa say hataney ya padawanit karney ka dand aaropit karnay ki shakti." Learned Counsel for the applicant has translated the aforesaid para 2 as follows:

Power to suspend and charge sheet for punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the aforesaid rank holders, under Rule 37 of the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules 1966.

Learned Counsel has argued that the power to suspend and charge-sheet for the punishment of dismissal or removal and reduction in rank is contemplated in para 2 of the aforesaid rules. To be more precise he has translated the words "Dand aaropit Karna" as the power to charge-sheet for punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank." I am not inclined to accept this interpretation, as it does not fit in properly with the context. In the Uttar Pradesh Prashasan Shabdkosh, Angrezi-Hindi, 1971, charge means "1. Kar (shulk, moolya adi) lagana. Aaropit Karna, Laina. 4.......(Per) aarop lagana. Dosharopan Karna.

6. Placing reliance upon the first part of the definition mentioned above, learned Counsel submits that Aaropit karna refers to the power to frame charge. In my view that is not correct. The definition of charge, mentioned above, itself shows that it refers to the imposition of tax, price etc. As a matter of fact, under the 4th explanation given above, charge means Dosharopan Karna. Therefore, in my view if the word charge meant charge-sheet as argued by the learned Counsel, the expression Dosharopan Karna would have been used. I further find at page 166 of the same Dictionary that the word Impose means Aaropit Karna. I am inclined to accept this meaning because it makes the sentence coherent and understandable. In other words Dand aaropit Karnay Ki Shakti means the power to impose punishment. I would, therefore, read paragraph 2 as meaning that the Director has been delegated the power under Rule 37 of the Palike Centralised Service Rules to suspend and to impose the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Director concerned had been vested with the power of dismissal and removal of the applicant, who was the Sanitary Inspector by virtue of the Government order issued under Rule 42 of the U. P. Centralised Service Rules 1966. He was, therefore, quite competent to sanction the prosecution of the applicant.

7. The next argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant is that the Director has not applied his mind to the facts of the case while granting sanction. He submits that the words in the report Annexure C are to the effect that if Sri Misra fails to pay Rs. 35/- per month to the accused he would not be able to sell milk in Shikohabad since he would be challaned. He, therefore, agreed to pay Rs. 25/- per month. But in the order granting sanction it has been mentioned that the Food Inspector was asking for Rs. 25/- per month on the ground that he would not take the sample of his milk and would not challan him. Comparing both these expressions in the report and the order granting sanction, I am of the view that there is hardly any difference between these two. It is the duty of the Food Inspector to take samples for analysis. Only when he takes the sample of milk he can get the same analysed and the accused challaned. If the Food Inspector says that he would not challan the accused, it obviously means that he will not take his sample for analysis. There seems to be hardly any difference in these expressions, to come to a conclusion that the Director had failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case. A number of cases have been cited by the counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions that for the commission of an offence under Section 161 IPC the accused should accept a gratification as a motive for doing or not doing thing in the exercise of his official function to favour that person. I have already mentioned above that under Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 9(c) of the P. F. Rules, it is the duty of the Food Inspector to procure and send sample for analysis. Since an allurement was given by the accused that he would not take his sample which is a part of his official duty if the latter made the monthly payments the accused will come within the clutches of the offence under Section 161 IPC.

8. Besides Section 5(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act defines the various types of misconducts contemplated under that Act. According to the allegations made in the report the accused applicant was habitually accepting or attempting to accept an illegal gratification of Rs. 25/- per month from the milk vendors of Shikohabad. As such, the misconduct contemplated under Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was fully applicable. A fair reading of the order of sanction indicates that the applicant has committed an offence under Section 161 IPC with an offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act as such permission for prosecution of the accused was rightly granted by the Director.

9. A number of other cases were also cited by the applicants counsel but in the view that I have taken I do not consider it necessary to deal with them as they do not apply to the facts of the present case.

10. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 3-4-1980 is hereby vacated, and the court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the disposal of the case.