Judgment : K. GOVINDARAJAN, J. (1) THE petitioner has filed the above O. P. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 4/94 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. (2) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Electrical Engineer in the Coimbatore Corporation. He was placed under suspension on the basis of the enquiry conducted. A charge memo was issued on 28-9-1992. On the basis of the explanation the enquiry officer submitted his findings to the government on 13-11-1992. Since the government had not passed the order on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer he filed writ petition in W. P. No. 12848 of 1993. Kanakaraj,. in the order dated 29-9-1993 directed the government to pass orders on the basis of the enquiry report dated 13-11-1992 within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. In the said order the learned Judge has further directed that if the order was not passed within the/period stipulated the petitioner would automatically be reinstated in service with effect from the expiry of the date fixed. (3) SIMULTANEOUSLY, a complaint dated 7-6-1990 was given against the petitioner for the alleged offence committed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. The complaint was registered in Crime No. 24/90 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilence and Anti-Corruption. Coimbatore. (4) ORIGINALLY when the sanction order was sought for from the government to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioner. The government in G. O. Ms. No. 126 dated 14-8-1992 observed as follows: the Government after considering all the materials submitted by the enquiry authority have decided that a departmental enquiry may first be ordered into the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against C. G. Sasindran, Assistant Engineer, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Electrical undertaking and if the enquiry substantiates the allegation then prosecution may be sanctioned. The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation is accordingly directed to conduct a Departmental enquiry into the above matter and send a report to Government in Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption and Vigilance Commission. T so the government took definite stand regarding the prosecution of the petitioner as stated above. (5) THEREAFTER, as stated above on 29-9-1992 a charge memo was issued by the Commissioner. Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. T so the government took definite stand regarding the prosecution of the petitioner as stated above. (5) THEREAFTER, as stated above on 29-9-1992 a charge memo was issued by the Commissioner. Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. In spite of the same the enquiry was not conducted and the petitioner filed W. P. and a direction was given by Kanakara. by the order 20-9-1993 as stated earlier. Pursuant to the order in the writ petition the Government of Tamil Nadu in G. O. (2d) No. 126 Municipal Administration and water Supply Department. Dated 25-11-1993 directed the Commissioner of Corporation, to revoke the order of suspension with immediate effect. Pursuant to the same the petitioner was reinstated. In the order Dated 8-3-1994, the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department in supercession of the charges already framed by the Commissioner, fresh charge was named under Rule 8 (2) of the Coimbatore corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner was directed to file a written statement of defence on the said charge. (6) WHILE the same was pending, the Govt. , in G. O. Ms. No. 85 Municipal Administration and Water supply Department dated 11-3-1994 accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) nw. 13 (2) of P. C. Act 1988. On the basis of the said sanction order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore took cognizance of the complaint in C. C. No. 4 of 1995. To quash the said proceedings the petitioner has filed the above Criminal original Petition. (7) THE learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the sanction order passed by the Government was without application of mind and so the proceedings on the basis of the said sanction order cannot be sustained in law. He has further submitted that in view of the long and unexplained delay in investigating and filing the final report, the entire proceedings have to be quashed. (8) THE learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and, whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, has to be gone into only at the time of trial and with respect to the delay. (8) THE learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and, whether the sanctioning authority has applied his mind or not, has to be gone into only at the time of trial and with respect to the delay. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the delay will be properly explained before the lower court and at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis that the final report was sent after a long time. (9) UNDER Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act 1988, sanction of the appropriate Government should be necessary. The said provision was introduced to protect a public servant from needless harassment or prosecution. The said protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty to the best of his ability. So the formality of granting sanction should be exercised very carefully as the same has been provided to protect the Government Officers. In this case, sanction has been accorded by the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 11-3-1994, and on the basis of the said sanction order, the lower Court took cognizance of the complaint. (10) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on a reading of the sanction order, it can be seen that the same has been passed mechanically, without applying their mind to the effect whether prosecution is necessary or not at that stage. As submitted by the learned Counsel, the Government applied its mind and in G. O. Ms. No. 126 Dated 14-8-1992, it was order that prosecution was not necessary before completing the departmental enquiry. It is the admitted fact that even as on date the departmental enquiry has not been completed. As submitted by the learned Counsel, the Government applied its mind and in G. O. Ms. No. 126 Dated 14-8-1992, it was order that prosecution was not necessary before completing the departmental enquiry. It is the admitted fact that even as on date the departmental enquiry has not been completed. Even the very same officer who accorded sanction on 11-3-1994 has passed the order on 8-3-1994 framing fresh charge and directed the petitioner to submit his written objections from a reading of the sanction order Dated 11-3-1994 there is no whisper about the fact why the Government had changed its mind to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner though the depart mental proceedings were pending and though the Government had taken a stand earlier that the departmental proceedings should be completed first and then prosecution should be sanctioned. It is relevant to mention that the learned Public Prosecutor in his opinion No. 13/1993 Dated 28-1-1993 addressed to the Secretary informed that it may not be advisable to prosecute the accused as he may be acquitted before the Criminal Court ultimately it may be very difficult for the prosecution to succeed. It is also mentioned in the opinion that the complainant when he was examined before the enquiry officer has not supported the prosecution case and he has admitted before the enquiry officer that the money was not paid as a bribe as it was private money transaction between Gown Marble the Complainant and the accused officer. Neither in the sanction order nor in the counter it is stated that the earlier order dated 14-8-1992 and the opinion of the Public Prosecutor were taken into consideration. (11) AS stated earlier, the procedure of granting sanction is only to protect the officials from needless prosecution. In this case, the opinion of the learned Public Prosecutor clearly show t hat no purpose will be served in prosecuting the petitioner. The Government have also opined earlier that prosecution may be taken if necessary after completion of the disciplinary proceedings. In the order granting sanction, nowhere it stated that the officer granting sanction has satisfied with the materials on record as to whether the prosecution against the petitioner is necessary or not. The Government have also opined earlier that prosecution may be taken if necessary after completion of the disciplinary proceedings. In the order granting sanction, nowhere it stated that the officer granting sanction has satisfied with the materials on record as to whether the prosecution against the petitioner is necessary or not. Since there is no evidence showing what documents and materials were relied upon for granting sanction this Court has to infer that the sanctioning authority granted sanction on the basis of mere allegations without applying its mind. (12) THE grant of sanction is not an idle formality of acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecution and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against public servant is concerned. (13) IN the decision reported in 1992 L. W. Cr1. 5821, Swamidurai,. , following the decisions of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 S. C. 6772 and 1984 (1) Crimes 568 has held as follows:on a perusal of Ex. p. 13 sanction order the sanction does not confirm to the ratio decided by the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The sanction order does not reveal that the Sanctioning Authority had perused any records in support of this case. The sanction order does not also show as to how the sanctioning Authority got himself satisfied with regard to the allegations against the accused. The sanctioning Authority has not even given any reasons for his satisfaction in the sanction Order. Therefore. I find that the Sanction Order is not valid and it is not in accordance with law. " (14) THE learned Government Advocate has submitted that merely because the departmental proceedings had not been proceeded further it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority is not correct in granting sanction for prosecution. He relied on the decision reported in P. S. Rajua v. The State of Bihar in support of his submission. In that case the issue was even after identical charge on the appellant was dropped in the departmental proceedings. Whether prosecution can be proceeded on the same charge. That is not the issue here. In this case the Government itself after applying its mind on the basis of the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner can be prosecuted only after completion of the depart mental enquiry. Whether prosecution can be proceeded on the same charge. That is not the issue here. In this case the Government itself after applying its mind on the basis of the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner can be prosecuted only after completion of the depart mental enquiry. The learned Public Prosecutor had also opined that prosecution was not necessary. In the sanction order the authority concerned has not even referred to those proceedings and taken into consideration which clearly shows the non-application of mind. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. Moreover the authority concerned had not even stated that he has perused all the documents and satisfied himself with the materials and come to the conclusion that prosecution of the petitioner was necessary. The sanctioning authority has passed the order in a mechanical way without applying his mind to the relevant documents and records. So the sanction order cannot be sustained -Since the sanction order cannot be sustained the prosecution launched against the petitioner also cannot be proceeded further. (15) THE learned counsel next submitted that though the F.I. R. was filed as early as on 7-6-1990 the charge sheet was filed only on 5-4-1994 after four years. Arunachalam,. while dealing with similar issue following the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar) and (T. T. Stephen v. M/ s. Parle Bowing Co. (P) Ltd. has held in the decision reported in (V. Venugopal and. Others v. State by Inspector of Police, Vellore as follows:t1keeping in view the enunciated law. I hold that the long and unexplained delay would certainly seriously prejudice the defence. Further inordinate and unreasonable delay amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The concept of speedy trial postulated under Art. 21 of the Constitution appears to have been thwarted. I have no hesitation in allowing these petitions and quashing all further proceedings in C. C. No. 64 of 1989 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Chenga in so far as it relates to the petitioners. Both these petitions are allowed. "even in the objection filed by the respondent no explanation is given with respect to the delay. I have no hesitation in allowing these petitions and quashing all further proceedings in C. C. No. 64 of 1989 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Chenga in so far as it relates to the petitioners. Both these petitions are allowed. "even in the objection filed by the respondent no explanation is given with respect to the delay. But in the second objection subsequently filed it is stated that the delay is only due to administrative reasons. Such an explanation cannot be accepted. (16) IN view of the above no purpose will be served in allowing the lower court to proceed with the proceedings against the petitioner any further. Accordingly this Cr1. O. P. is allowed. Crl.O.P. allowed.