The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that prior sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) law is required only while a public servant remains in service and not after retirement or demitting office.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while dismissing a petition filed by Ghulam Rasool Baba, a former Accounts Officer in the office of the Director, Health Services, Kashmir, who had challenged corruption proceedings initiated against him. The Court clarified that protection under Section 19 of the PC Act, which corresponds to Section 6 of the J&K PC Act, ceases once a public servant retires.
The petition arose from an FIR registered by the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir concerning alleged large-scale financial irregularities during Baba’s tenure. The case, pending before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, relates to offences under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and various sections of the RPC.
According to the prosecution, while serving as Accounts Officer, the petitioner facilitated illegal and fraudulent withdrawal of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) amounting to ₹6,99,880 by abusing his official position and manipulating records in favour of officials of the Block Medical Officer (BMO) office, Beerwa. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against multiple accused, including the petitioner, and the trial court framed charges against him.
Baba argued that he had no role in preparation or passing of adjustment bills, claimed the allegations were vague, and contended that the charge sheet was filed without obtaining mandatory sanction for prosecution. He also pleaded violation of his right to a speedy trial due to alleged delay.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the allegations against the petitioner—facilitating fraudulent LTC drawals and granting sanctions without competence—were supported by material on record. The Court relied significantly on the statement of the then Director, Health Services, Kashmir, who stated that the petitioner had sanctioned LTC cases without approval and beyond his authority, including ineligible cases.
On the issue of sanction, the Court noted that the charge sheet was filed after the petitioner had retired and, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, held that no sanction was required post-retirement. The plea of delay was also rejected, with the Court observing that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution or the trial court.