CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusRAMESH CHANDER DIWAN

                [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1476 : 2025 INSC 539

                   Central Bureau of Investigation
                                 v.
                      Ramesh Chander Diwan
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2025)
                                22 April 2025
               [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was right in holding that sanction under
       Section 197, Cr.PC not having been obtained, the respondent
       should be discharged for the offences registered under Sections
       120B and 420 of the IPC against him.

                                 Headnotes†
       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.197, 2(y) – Penal Code,
       1860 – s.21 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants –
       Sanction for prosecution – Respondent initially appointed
       by Government of Punjab, was sent on deputation in the
       Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh – Deputation period was
       extended by Governor of Punjab from time to time – FIR
       registered against the respondent for allegedly committing
       offences under IPC and PC Act – High Court discharged him
       for offences punishable under IPC on the ground that no
       sanction was obtained u/s.197, CrPC – Sustainability:
       Held: Impugned order is correct – Respondent while rendering
       service for the State of Punjab as well as the administration of
       the Union Territory was a public servant covered by s.21, IPC
       12th description clause (a) – Protection of s.197(1), CrPC is
       available only to such public servants whose appointing authority
       is the Central Government or the State Government and not to
       every public servant – Despite his assignment on deputation to
       the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, the respondent continued
       to remain a public servant for the purposes of s.197(1), CrPC,
       being removable from office only by an appropriate authority in
       the Government of Punjab – Nothing on record to show that upon
       assignment of the respondent on deputation with the Municipal

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           1477

       Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


     Corporation, Chandigarh, he was either absorbed in its services
     resulting in severance of relationship with the Government of
     Punjab or that, by any order validly made, the respondent ceased
     to remain a Government servant once he left the post under
     the Government he was serving prior to his deputation – Article
     311 of the Constitution ordains that no authority subordinate to
     the appointing authority can dismiss or remove a member of
     the civil service of the State or a civil post holder – Neither the
     Board of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh nor its Municipal
     Commissioner would have the authority or jurisdiction to take
     disciplinary action against the respondent had he misconducted
     himself while discharging his duty under such corporation – Plea
     that the respondent ceased to be a public servant upon being sent
     on deputation first to the Union Territory, Chandigarh or when he
     was relieved by the Administrator for joining a new assignment in
     the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh rejected – Prevention of
     Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2), 13(1)(d) – Constitution of India –
     Article 311. [Paras 24-28]
     Public Service Law – Deputation – Concept – Disciplinary
     control over a deputationist – Discussed. [Paras 18-21]

                             Case Law Cited
     A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma [2023] 12 SCR 932 :
     (2023) 8 SCC 711 – relied on.
     S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Others [1981] 3
     SCR 864 : (1981) 3 SCC 431; Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar
     and Another [1998] 3 SCR 22 : (1998) 5 SCC 91; N.K. Sharma v.
     Abhimanyu [2005] Supp. 4 SCR 207 : (2005) 13 SCC 213; Punjab
     State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander and Another
     [2016] 4 SCR 537 : (2016) 13 SCC 44; Bharat Sanchar Nigam
     Limited and Others v. Pramod V. Sawant and Another (2019) 16
     SCC 63; State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan Nair [1999] 3 SCR
     864 : (1999) 5 SCC 690; Inspector of Police v. Battenapatla
     Venkata Ratnam [2015] 4 SCR 609 : (2015) 13 SCC 87; State of
     Punjab v. Inder Singh [1997] Supp. 4 SCR 425 : (1997) 8 SCC
     372; Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar [1999] 3 SCR 752 :
     (1999) 4 SCC 659; Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari [1955] 2 SCR
     925; A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma [2023] 12 SCR 932 :
     (2023) 8 SCC 711 – referred to.
1478                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                               List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention
    of Corruption Act, 1988; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
    2023; Constitution of India.

                            List of Keywords
    Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Protection of
    Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Deputation;
    Public servant; Sanction for prosecution; Deputation to the Municipal
    Corporation, Chandigarh; Government of Punjab; Disciplinary
    control; Article 311 of the Constitution of India; Discharge;
    Disciplinary control over a deputationist.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1527 of 2025

    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2024 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 1388
    of 2021

    With

    Criminal Appeal No. 1528 of 2025

                        Appearances for Parties

    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Mukesh
    Kumar Maroria, Mukul Singh, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh,
    Vivek Gurnani, Alok Mittal, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Anju Thomas,
    Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi,
    Ms. Shriya Mishra, Ms. Vismita Diwan, Aditya Grover, Harshit
    Khanduja, Ms. Sujal Gupta, Ms. Neha Mehta Satija.
    Advs. for the Respondent:
    Siddharth Agarwal, D. P. Singh, Sr. Advs., Alok Mittal, Ms. Astha
    Sharma, Ms. Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi,
    Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Ms. Shriya Mishra, Ms. Vismita Diwan,
    Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Tarannum. Cheema, Akash Singh,
    Manu Mishra, Akashy. N, Ambar Jain, Sanjay Jain.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1479

           Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                              Judgment

      Dipankar Datta, J.

1.    These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against a common
      judgment and order dated 29th January, 20241 passed by the High
      Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The impugned order of
      the High Court partly allowed a revision petition2 of the respondent,
      wherein an order of the Special Court (CBI) dated 29th October, 2021
      dismissing the respondent’s application for discharge was under
      challenge. While the High Court discharged the respondent in respect
      of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 18603 on the
      ground that no sanction had been obtained as per the statutory
      mandate contained in Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,4
      the prayer of the respondent for discharge qua offences alleged
      against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19885 was
      spurned. The High Court held that even though the respondent had
      retired from service, the amended provisions of Section 19 of the
      PC Act would have no retrospective application and, therefore, he
      was not entitled to derive any benefit of such amendment.
2.    Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the appellant in the lead
      appeal whereas the appellant in the connected appeal is the first
      informant/complainant.
3.    An FIR was registered on 9th December, 2014 at Police Station
      ACB, CBI Chandigarh, under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and
      under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against
      the respondent. It was alleged in the FIR that while the respondent
      was functioning as the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Municipal
      Corporation, Chandigarh, in connivance and collusion with the co-
      accused, M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., he caused wrongful
      loss in excess of Rs.13.66 crore to the Government exchequer by


1    impugned order
2    Crl. Revision Petition No.1388 of 2021
3    IPC
4    Cr. PC
5    PC Act
1480                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      changing the terms and conditions of the Detailed Notice Inviting
      Tender. A detailed investigation followed and on completion thereof,
      a charge-sheet dated 10th October, 2016 under Section 173(2), Cr.
      PC was filed in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh.6
      Bare reading of the charge-sheet reveals that the respondent, along
      with the co-accused, had committed offences of the nature alleged
      in the FIR. The Special Judge vide order dated 23rd November, 2021
      was pleased to frame charges against the accused persons.
4.    The respondent had retired from service, having attained the age of
      superannuation on 30th September, 2016. Sanction under Section
      197 of the Cr. PC was not obtained by CBI. The respondent applied
      for discharge on the ground of absence of sanction at any stage. He
      also sought protection under the amended provisions of Section 19(1)
      of the PC Act too, effective from 26th July, 2018, which mandated
      sanction to be obtained even in respect of retired public servants.
      As noted above, the Special Court dismissed the application for
      discharge whereafter the High Court, on the respondent’s application
      under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. PC, passed the
      impugned order.
5.    Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned
      Additional Solicitor General contended that the respondent though
      was a public servant removable from office by the Governor of Punjab
      but upon being sent to join his new assignment in the Municipal
      Corporation, Chandigarh, on usual terms and conditions, he ceased
      to be a public servant and the provisions of Section 197, Cr. PC
      had no application to him. According to Mr. Raju, the High Court fell
      in error in holding that without sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC,
      cognizance of the offence could not have been taken. Reliance was
      placed by Mr. Raju on several decisions of this Court in support of
      his prayer for interference with the impugned order. The same are:
      (i)     S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Others,7
      (ii)    Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar and Another,8




6    Special Court
7    (1981) 3 SCC 431
8    (1998) 5 SCC 91
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        1481

        Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


      (iii) N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu,9
      (iv) Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander
           and Another,10
      (v)    Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others v. Pramod V.
             Sawant and Another,11
      (vi) State of Kerala v. V. Padmanabhan Nair;12 and
      (vii) Inspector of Police v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam.13
6.    We have heard Mr. Raju, at length. Except for seeking certain
      clarifications, we have not felt it necessary to call upon learned
      counsel for the respondent to argue.
7.    The only question that has engaged our consideration is whether the
      High Court was right in holding that sanction under Section 197, Cr.
      PC not having been obtained, the respondent should be discharged
      for the offences registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC
      against him.
8.    Since a decision on these two appeals would depend entirely on how
      we read and interpret Section 197, Cr. PC in the light of the deputation
      assignment of the respondent, we prefer to commence our analysis
      by noting the relevant positions held by the officers/employees who
      were parties to the proceedings before this Court in the decisions
      cited by Mr. Raju, what precisely were the questions which arose
      for determination in such cases and how the same were answered.
9.    In S.S. Dhanoa (supra), the appellant was a member of the Indian
      Administrative Service. While the appellant was holding the office
      of Joint Commissioner (State Liaison) in the Ministry of Agriculture,
      (Department of Agriculture), his services were placed at the disposal
      of the Department of Co-operation, for his appointment as the
      General Manager, Super Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The
      short question that fell for determination in the appeal was whether
      a member of the Indian Administrative Service, whose services


9    (2005) 13 SCC 213
10   (2016) 13 SCC 44
11   (2019) 16 SCC 63
12   (1999) 5 SCC 690
13   (2015) 13 SCC 87
1482                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     are placed at the disposal of an organisation which is neither a
     local authority, nor a corporation established by or under a Central,
     Provincial or State Act, nor a Government Company, by the Central
     Government or the Government of a State, can be treated to be a
     ‘public servant’ within the meaning of clause Twelfth of Section 21
     of the IPC for the purpose of Section 197, Cr. PC. The question was
     answered in the negative.
10. Mohd. Hadi Raja (supra), however, did not involve a deputationist.
    The common question of law arising for decision in that case was
    whether the provisions of sanction under sub-section (1) of Section
    197, Cr. PC are applicable for prosecuting officers of public sector
    undertakings or government companies. Since such officers are
    removable from service by authorities other than the Government,
    it was held that they were not entitled to invoke Section 197 of the
    Cr. PC.
11. Whether a Class 1 officer of the Government of Haryana deputed
    to work as Managing Director of a cooperative society is entitled
    to protection under sub-section (1) of Section 197, Cr. PC was the
    question arising for decision in N.K. Sharma (supra). It was held
    that no sanction was required in the case therein as the appellant’s
    salary was not paid by the Government nor was he at the relevant
    time in service of the State, thereby, not satisfying the requirements
    of being a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 197, Cr. PC.
12. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (supra) involved the
    question as to whether the first respondent, an employee of the
    appellant corporation, was a public servant and the trial in its entirety
    stood invalid because sanction to prosecute under Section 197, Cr.
    PC had not been obtained. It was held by this Court following the
    decision in Mohd. Hadi Raja (supra) that the appellant being an
    employee of the appellant corporation was not entitled to the benefit
    of Section 197, Cr. PC and he cannot put forth the claim that breach
    of trust is connected with his official duty, thereby not necessitating
    sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC.
13. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), Bharat Sanchar Nigam
    Limited was the first appellant whereas the other appellants were
    its employees. The complainant was the respondent. The appeal
    before this Court raised a short and pure question of law with
    regard to protection under Section 197, Cr. PC being available to
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        1483

        Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


      the employees of a public sector corporation claiming the status of
      a ‘public servant’. This happened to be a case where, except one
      of the appellants who retired while on deputation, deputation of the
      other employees was followed by absorption in the undertaking.
      Following Mohd. Hadi Raja (supra), it was held that the employees
      of the first appellant were not entitled to invoke Section 197, Cr. PC.
14. This Court in V. Padmanabhan Nair (supra) held that an accused
    facing prosecution for offences under the PC Act cannot claim any
    immunity on the ground of want of sanction, if he ceased to be a
    public servant on the date when the court took cognizance of the
    offence.
15. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam (supra) was cited for emphasizing
    that protection under Section 197, Cr. PC from harassment is given
    in public interest and the same cannot be treated as a shield to
    protect corrupt officials.
16. Having considered the precedents cited by Mr. Raju, with which we
    have no quarrel, and on consideration of the applicable statutory
    provisions, we now proceed to assign reasons for our ultimate
    conclusion.
17. The question arising for decision cannot but be decided without
    keeping the concept of deputation in the field of public service law
    in perspective. We, therefore, see the need to briefly touch upon
    such concept.
18. The concept of deputation was explained by this Court in State of
    Punjab v. Inder Singh14 as follows:
             18. The concept of “deputation” is well understood in service
             law and has a recognised meaning. “Deputation” has a different
             connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word
             “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means
             service outside the cadre or outside the parent department.
             Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post
             outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on
             a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the
             employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy



14   (1997) 8 SCC 372
1484                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned
             promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules.
             Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment
             or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or
             post from which the employee is transferred. There can be
             no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed
             and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the
             deputation post. ...
                                                            (emphasis ours)

19. In Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar,15 this Court had the
    occasion to observe:
             8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of
             an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of
             one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly
             referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to
             another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred
             to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on
             deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies
             of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual
             and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the
             services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of
             such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the
             consent of the employee to go on deputation or not. ...
                                                            (emphasis ours)

20. Where exigency of public service requires the parent department
    (lending authority) to send its employee on deputation to the receiving
    department (borrowing authority) and such an arrangement is
    preceded by a consensus among the three, i.e., the lending authority,
    the borrowing authority and the officer/employee, the statutory rules
    do normally provide for his repatriation. In such a case, there can be
    no severance of relationship with the parent department. However,
    during the period the officer/employee is sent on deputation to the
    receiving department, the parent department may fill up the post
    vacated by the deputationist in accordance with law under the


15   (1999) 4 SCC 659
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          1485

         Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


      category of ‘deputation vacancy’, which also is not unknown in public
      service law, but it is only for a limited period till the officer/employee
      is repatriated.
21. Insofar as disciplinary control over a deputationist is concerned,
    such control generally vests with the appropriate authority in
    the parent department in which the substantive appointment is
    held. However, it cannot be gainsaid that by statutory rules or by
    conditions contained in the order of deputation, it can be provided
    that the deputationist, for the period he is serving on deputation,
    will be subject to the disciplinary control of the department to
    which he is deputed. Should there be a provision in this behalf, the
    deputationist may be proceeded against, if the occasion therefore
    arises, by the appropriate authority in the receiving department.
    Although generally an employee is supposed to have one master,
    in the context of deputation there could be a plurality of masters.
    Nonetheless, it is the statutory rules which would be the deciding
    factor. If the rules indicate that disciplinary control is retained by
    the parent department, the receiving department would have no
    jurisdiction to exercise such control.
22. Having noted the concept of assignment on deputation, a quick
    look at the object that Section 197, Cr. PC seeks to achieve would
    suffice for completeness of understanding. We may profitably refer
    to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Matajog Dobey v.
    H.C. Bhari.16 While repelling a challenge that Section 197 of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (pari materia with Section 197,
    Cr. PC) offended Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court held:
             15. ... Article 14 does not render Section 197 of the Criminal
             Procedure Code ultra vires as the discrimination is based upon
             a rational classification. 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. It was
             argued that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code
             vested an absolutely arbitrary power in the Government to
             grant or withhold sanction at their sweet-will and pleasure, and
             the legislature did not lay down or even indicate any guiding
             principles to control the exercise of the discretion. There is


16   [1955] 2 SCR 925
1486                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          no question of any discrimination between one person and
          another in the matter of taking proceedings against a public
          servant for an act done or purporting to be done by the public
          servant in the discharge of his official duties. No one can take
          such proceedings without such sanction. If the Government
          gives sanction against one public servant but declines to do
          so against another, then the government servant against whom
          sanction is given may possibly complain of discrimination. But
          the petitioners who are complainants cannot be heard to say
          so, for there is no discrimination as against any complainant.
          It has to be borne in mind that a discretionary power is not
          necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power
          is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in
          the government and not in a minor official. Further, we are
          not now concerned with any such question. We have merely
          to see whether the court could take cognisance of the case
          without previous sanction and for this purpose the court has
          to find out if the act complained against was committed by the
          accused while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
          official duty. Once this is settled, the case proceeds or is thrown
          out. Whether sanction is to be accorded or not is a matter for
          the government to consider. The absolute power to accord or
          withhold sanction conferred on the government is irrelevant and
          foreign to the duty cast on the court, which is the ascertainment
          of the true nature of the act.
                                                           (emphasis ours)

23. Turning to the words ‘public servant’ appearing in sub-section (1) of
    Section 197, Cr. PC, it has not been defined in the Cr. PC; however,
    what the words ‘public servant’ denote is found in Section 21, IPC
    and by reason of Section 2(y) of the Cr. PC, the meaning of ‘public
    servant’ as appearing in Section 197 thereof has to be understood
    in the light of its definition in Section 21, IPC. Section 21 of the IPC,
    to the extent relevant, reads thus:
          21. “Public servant”.—The words “public servant” denote a
          person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following,
          namely:—
          ***
          Twelfth.—Every person—
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              1487

         Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


              (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated
              by fees or commission for the performance of any public
              duty by the Government;
              (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation
              established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act
              or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of
              the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
24. Although the respondent’s initial appointment letter is not on
    record, it has not been disputed before us (in view of the additional
    documents placed on record by the respondent in terms of an
    order dated 18th March, 2025) that the respondent was initially
    appointed by the Government of Punjab. If not a member of the
    State’s civil service, the respondent was most certainly the holder
    of a civil post. It is further undisputed that the respondent was sent
    on deputation to the Union Territory, Chandigarh from the State
    of Punjab (P.W.D P.H Branch). Also, it is not in dispute that vide
    an order of the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh17 dated
    25th February, 2005, the respondent was relieved to join a new
    assignment in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. From time
    to time, the Governor of Punjab extended the deputation period of
    the respondent with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. Orders
    dated 13th October, 2006 and 12th July, 2007 placed on record by
    the respondent evince extension of the deputation period of the
    respondent with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh by none
    other than the Governor of Punjab for specified periods. Effectively,
    what these orders did was to temporarily place the respondent’s
    service at the disposal of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It
    has not been demonstrated before us by CBI that upon assignment
    of the respondent on deputation with the Municipal Corporation,
    Chandigarh, he was either absorbed in its services resulting in
    severance of relationship with the Government of Punjab or that,
    by any order validly made, the respondent ceased to remain a
    Government servant once he left the post under the Government
    he was serving prior to his deputation.
25. Moreover, clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution ordains that
    no authority subordinate to the appointing authority can dismiss


17   Administrator
1488                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      or remove a member of the civil service of the State or a civil
      post holder. In case the respondent, while on deputation, were
      to commit a misconduct warranting either dismissal or removal, it
      has not been shown by referring to statutory rules that upon the
      respondent’s assignment on deputation, disciplinary control over
      him stood transferred from any authority of the Government of
      Punjab to an authority of equal rank in the Municipal Corporation,
      Chandigarh and such authority had been empowered to take
      disciplinary action against the respondent. In the absence thereof,
      neither the Board of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh nor its
      Municipal Commissioner would have the authority or jurisdiction to
      take disciplinary action against the respondent had he misconducted
      himself while discharging his duty under such corporation.
26. This legal position is fortified by a recent decision of this Court in A.
    Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma18 where a coordinate Bench
    has held that protection of sub-section (1) of Section 197, Cr. PC is
    available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is
    the Central Government or the State Government and not to every
    public servant.
27. We are of the considered opinion, having regard to the materials
    on record, 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 and 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, Cr. PC, being
    removable from office by an appropriate authority in the Government
    of Punjab and none else. We are afraid, no material which could
    persuade us to take a contrary view has been shown.
28. For the foregoing reasons, we find no reason to accept Mr. Raju’s
    contention that the respondent ceased to be a public servant upon
    being sent on deputation first to the Union Territory, Chandigarh
    or when he was relieved by the Administrator for joining a new
    assignment in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The inevitable
    result is that the lead appeal and the connected appeal ought to fail.



18   (2023) 8 SCC 711
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1489

          Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan


29. Mr. Raju, sensing the Court’s mind, requested for liberty being granted
    to seek sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
    Sanhita, 2023, which has introduced the concept of deemed sanction.
30. In view of the provisions of Section 531 of the BNSS, the Cr. PC
    stands repealed; yet, pending proceedings are to be continued under
    the repealed law. We, therefore, decline Mr. Raju’s prayer. However,
    liberty to seek sanction under the Cr. PC, if so advised, is reserved.
31. While holding the impugned order to be correct, these appeals stand
    dismissed on the above terms.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey