Short answer: For offences alleged after the 2018 amendment, yes in most cases. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act now covers a person who “was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed” with the Union or a State, so retirement does not remove the need for sanction. The Allahabad High Court applied this in 2026 and set aside a cognizance order taken without sanction against a retired officer.
What changed in 2018
Before 26 July 2018, Section 19 sanction was generally treated as unnecessary once the officer had ceased to hold the relevant office. The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 rewrote Section 19(1)(a) and (b), which now cover a person “who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed” in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State. Sanction is given by the Union or State Government respectively.
For any other person, clause (c) refers to the authority competent to remove him from office, and Section 19(2) clarifies that where there is doubt, the authority competent to remove him at the time of the alleged offence gives sanction.
The Allahabad High Court ruling
In Dina Nath Jauhar v. State of U.P. (reported September 2026), Justice Nand Prabha Shukla held that prior sanction under the amended Section 19 is required before cognizance even where the accused has retired. The amendment operates prospectively from 26 July 2018; since the FIR in that case was registered on 4 September 2018, the amended provision applied. The court noted that sanction had earlier been denied on the footing that the accused had already retired, set aside the cognizance order, and directed the prosecution to obtain fresh sanction within six weeks.
Which date controls
Two dates matter. The date of the alleged offence decides who the competent authority is. The date of the FIR or of cognizance, read with the 26 July 2018 commencement, decides whether the amended Section 19 applies at all. Older cases may be governed by the pre-amendment position, so each file needs a date check.
Section 218 BNSS for retired officers
Separately, Section 218 BNSS (formerly Section 197 CrPC) requires sanction for offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in official duty. The Supreme Court has explained in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka (2024) that this protection covers only acts done in discharge of official duty, not every act of a public servant. Whether it applies to a retired officer depends on the nature of the act, not on retirement.
Related questions
Who grants sanction for a retired Central Government officer?
Under Section 19(1)(a), the Union Government grants sanction where the officer was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time of the alleged offence.
Does retirement end a disproportionate assets case?
No. Retirement does not end criminal liability. It only affects procedural questions such as who grants sanction and whether service rules for departmental action still apply.
What if the officer has moved to another post?
The amended Section 19 looks to the employment at the time of the alleged offence, and Section 19(2) points to the authority competent to remove the officer at that time where there is doubt.
Practical points
- Note the date of the alleged offence, the FIR date and the cognizance date against 26 July 2018.
- Ask for the sanction order, if any, before cognizance is taken.
- Where cognizance was taken without sanction, the remedy is usually a petition to the High Court.
- Keep service records showing the post held and the removing authority at the relevant time.
Sources: India Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Verdictum, Dina Nath Jauhar v. State of U.P., September 2026; LiveLaw, Section 197 CrPC vs Section 218 BNSS.
For a confidential discussion on sanction for retired public servants, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
