JUDGMENT 1. - Under an order dated 11.11.2009 the Chief Engineer, SWRPD and Establishment (Non-Gazetted), Rajasthan, while exercising powers under Section 19(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed are that the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, Sriganganagar executed an agreement with M/s Ankita Enterprises for construction of Single Brick Lining at HS Minor, RD No.5 to 20. The work aforesaid was to be carried out during the time of closure of canal and such closure was due on 10.12.2005. An indent No.0 dated 23.11.2005 was issued to carry 350 cement bags from godown of the Water Resources Department to the site and the bags so issued under the indent aforesaid were carried and kept at a house nearby to construction site. The petitioner being a Junior Engineer, counter signed the indent and confirmed the issuance of 350 cement bags. 3. A complaint was made alleging commission of an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, as well as against the contractor who placed cement bags at a nearby place to the construction site. According to the complaint, the petitioner and the contractor made an effort for misuse of cement by storing same at a private place, instead of construction site. On filing the complaint aforesaid a criminal case was registered and after necessary investigation the entire record was remitted to the authority competent for grant of sanction for prosecution as per provision of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988. The authority competent i.e. the 3 Chief Engineer (respondent No.3) after examining the entire matter made a detailed comment and reached at the conclusion that looking to all the facts of the case the grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner shall not be justifiable. The authority competent i.e. the 3 Chief Engineer (respondent No.3) after examining the entire matter made a detailed comment and reached at the conclusion that looking to all the facts of the case the grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner shall not be justifiable. The comments made by the Chief Engineer reads as follows:- " fopkjk/khu izdj.k esa fnukad 09-12-2005 dks Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;Urk] xksfoUnjke Bsdsnkj }kjk vkilh feyhHkxr ds rgr ,p0,p0 ekbZuj dh vkj0Mh0 5 ls 20 rd ds e/; ykbZfuax dk;Z gsrq vkoafVr flapkbZ foHkkx dh ljdkjh lhesaV dks cspus ds mns'; ls b';w djokdj fu/kkZfjr LVksj esa ugha j[kdj izkbZosV txg ij mrkjus ds vkjksi eas Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/k C;wjks us Jh n;kjke d0v0 ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksx pykus gsrq vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr pkgh gSA bl laca/k esa ys[k gS fd vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk xaxugj nf{k.k [k.M Jhxaxkuxj dk;kZy; ds vuqca/k la[;k 99@2004&05 }kjk QeZ vafdrk ,.VjizkbZtst dks ,p0,p0 ekbZuj dh vkj0Mh0 la[;k 5 ls 20 ds chp flaxy fczd ykbZfuax dk;Z vkaofVr FkkA bl dk;Z ds uke ij QeZ ekfyd Bsdsnkj Jh xksfoUnjke }kjk bMsUM la[;k 0 fnukad 23-11-2005 }kjk tfj;s 3 xsVikl ua0 2@150 ls 2@152 }kjk fnukad 09-12-2005 dks dqy 350 ux lhesaV cSx foHkkx ds xksnke ls b';w djkdj fdjk;s ds rhu Vs~DVjksa esa Hkjdj ,p0,p0 ekbZuj ds mDr dk;Z gsrq lkbZV ds utnhd pd 3 ,p0,p0 esa fueZyflaag tVfl[k ds edku ij mrjokbZA vuqca/k la[;k 99@2004&05 dh 'krZ ds vuqlkj %& Cement required for lining as per standard consumption will be supplied to the contractor by the department free of cost at divisional store at JATSAR, DABLA further carriage to the work site will be done by the contractor. Beside the register 4 maintained by the department, the account of carted cement will be maintained by the contractor in sprite register showing date wise receipts and consumption. Before taking every new lot is confide used and get countersigned by AEN. concern. This register shall be kept at site for checking by deptt. Authorities. Contractor shall submit the register along with final bill. If payment of final bill delays to none submission Contractor himself is responsible for that. Before taking every new lot is confide used and get countersigned by AEN. concern. This register shall be kept at site for checking by deptt. Authorities. Contractor shall submit the register along with final bill. If payment of final bill delays to none submission Contractor himself is responsible for that. ,lhch foHkkx us vuqla/kku ds nkSjku dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk fookfnr lhesaV 350 cSx b';w lEcU/kh bUMsUV la[;k 0 fnukad 23-11-2005 dks dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk Bsdsnkj ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr djus ds lkFk&2 bUMsV ij fjflfOM vckM Vq vkbZVe fy[kdj eky dh vfxze jlhn vafdr fd;s tkus dks ys[kk fu;eksa ds izfrdwy crk;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa fuEu fcUnq fopkj.kh; gS%& 1- Bsdnkj dks ,p0,p0 forfjdk dh vkj0Mh0 5&20 ij fuek.kZ dk;Z py jgk FkkA fnukad 10-12-2005 ugj canh gksus dh lwpuk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s ykbZfuax dk;Z ;q)Lrj ij fd;s tkus ds dkj.k 106 lhesaV cSx LVksd esa gksrs gq;s Hkh 350 cSx lhesaV fnukad 09-12-2005 dks ,Mokal esa b';w djk;s tkdj j[ks x;s rkfd ugj ds Dykstj dss nkSjku ykbZfuuax djkbZ tk lds] ftldk bUMsUM lgk;d vfHk;Urk ls vuqeksfnr FkkA bUMsUM 23-11-2005 dks tkjh fd;k x;k ijUrq ugj esa ty izokfgr gksus ij fuekZ.k dk;Z djok;k vlEHko FkkA blfy;s Bsdsnkj us fnukad 23-11-2005 ds LFkku ij fnukad 09-12-2005 dks LVksj ls lhesaV mBk;kA blls Li"V gS fd lheasV cktkj esa cspus dh ea'kk ugha FkhA 2- lkbZV ij py jgs dk;Z dh izxfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s bUMsUM ij ,Mokal jlhn vafdr djuk izfd;k dk ,d fgLlk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij vko';drk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s dsUnzh; LVksj ls lhesaV izkIr dj fu/kkZfjr lkbZV ij vko';drk vuqlkj Bsdsnkj dks miyC/k djkbZ tkrh gSA 3- foHkkx }kjk Bsdsnkj dks bl dk;Z ij uk rks lkbZV ij dksbZ LFkkbZ LVksj miyC/k djk;k x;k Fkk vkSj u gh Bsdsnkj ds ikl gh lkbZV ij dksbZ LFkkbZ LVksj miyC/k Fkk bl dkj.k Bsdsnkj }kjk dsuky ij ykbZfuax dk;Z dh izxfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s dk;ZLFky ds utnhd miyC/k Jh fueZyflag uked O;fDr ds edku esa mrjokdj j[kk x;k rFkk lEiw.kZ tkjh lhesaV mlh jkst mrkjk x;k rkfd dSuky dk Dykstj gksus ij ykbZfuax dk dk;Z fd;k tk ldsA bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh ys[k gS fd dk;Z dh xq.kork vkfn dh tkap gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk vyx ls tkap le; & le; ij dh tkrh gSA vr% 350 lhesaV ds cSx cspus ds iz;kl ls fuf'pr :isl ykbZfuax dk;Z dh xq.koRrk izHkkfor gksrhA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e/; utj j[krs gq;s Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;Urk ij Bsdsnkj ds lkFk feyhHkxr dj 350 lhesaV cSx cspus ds iz;kl ds vkjksi esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr fn;k tkuk mfpr izfrr ugha gksrk gSA vr% izdj.k dh i=koyh dkfeZd ( d&3 ) foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k i02 ( 157 ) dkfeZd@da&3@97 fnukad 30-05-2001 ( ist&16 ) ds fcUnq la[;k 2 ds lUnHkZ esa eq[; lrZdrk vk;qDr ds Lrj ij vafre fu.kZ; fy;s tkus gsrq izLrqr gSA " 5. The matter then was placed before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources who in turn instructed his office to examine the matter. A note was accordingly made that no comment is made by the Chief Engineer regarding averments contained in para "A" page 3/c of the report given by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The 6 matter, thus, was remanded to the Chief Engineer to make necessary comments about the note given by the Anti Corruption Bureau in para referred above. A note was accordingly made that no comment is made by the Chief Engineer regarding averments contained in para "A" page 3/c of the report given by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The 6 matter, thus, was remanded to the Chief Engineer to make necessary comments about the note given by the Anti Corruption Bureau in para referred above. The Chief Engineer, after examining the matter afresh, made a detailed comment on 11.6.2008 and that reads as follows:- " iSjk&10 ds dze esa ys[k gS fd vuqca/k dh 'krZ la[;k 2 ds vuqlkj lhesaV jftLV~j pSfdax gsrq miyC/k u djkuk dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dk rdZ laxr vk/kkj ugha gS] Bsdsnkj }kjk dksbZ fjdkMZ la/kkfjr u fd;k gksuk vFkok mlds }kjk dksbZ fjdkMZ tkap gsrq miyC/k u djkuk izfdz;kxr =qfV gS rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij lhesaV dk xcu djus dh vo/kkj.kk rdZlaxr ugha gSA fo'ks"kr% ml ifjfLFkfr tcfd og lhesaV fuekZ.k LFky ds fudVre fLFkr edku esa mrkjk x;kA Bsdsnkj dks fookfnr 350 FkSys lhesaV ls iwoZ dqy 9435 FkSys lhesaV tkjh dh xbZ ftlesa ls mlus 9329 FkSys mi;ksx dj fy;s Fks rFkk 106 FkSys 'ks"k FksA mi;ksx fd;s x;s FkSys iwoZ esa fu"ikfnr dk;Z LFkyksa ij dke vk;s FksA muds fy;s foHkkx us vuqca/k esa fu/kkZfjr nj 2 :i;k izfr [kkyh FkSys ds fglkc ls pkSFks jfux fcy ls 5069 [kkyh FkSys ( :0 10138@& ) rFkk vkaBos jfuax fcy ls 4101 [kkyh Fksys ( :i;s 8202@& ) dh olwyh izHkkoh dj yh FkhA 'ks"k olwyh vafre fcy ls izHkkoh gqbZ FkhA ;g izfd;kxr iz'u gSA fnukad 23-11-2005 dks 350 FkSys lhesaV dk bUMsUV dk;Z dh vuqekfur mi;ksx ek=k ds vk/kkj ij vkdayu dj cuk;k x;k Fkk rFkk laHkkfor ugj canh ds n`f"Vxr rS;kj fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq ftyk jsxqys'ku desVh }kjk ty miyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij funsZf'kr jsxqys'ku ds vuqlkj ugjcanh ugha gqbZA vr% dk;Z laHko u jgus ds dkj.k rRle; lhesaV LVksj ls ugha mBk;k x;k FkkA fnukad 09-12-2005 dks fudV Hkfo"; esa miyC/k gksus okyh ugj cnh ds e/;ustj xsV ikl dVokdj lhesaV Hk.Mkj ls mBkbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk ifjogu dh xbZ Fkh rkfd dk;Z iwoZ rS;kjh iw.kZ gks ldsA okLrfod :i ls ugj canh fnukad 12-12-2005 ls gqbZ Fkh vkSj ml ugj cnh esa 'ks"k cpk dk;Z lEiw.kZ dj fy;k x;k FkkA fnukad 23-11-2005 dks Hk.Mkj ls mBkus dh dk;Zokgh ln~Hkkouk izsfjr Fkh u fd lhesaV dks [kqnZcqnZ djus dh nqHkkZouk ls] tSlk dh Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd foHkkx }kjk vo/kkfjr dh xbZ gSA dk;Z lEiw.kZ gksus ij okLrfod miHkksx dh tkap i'pkr 50 FkSys lhesaV dk cpuk rFkk mldk okfil tek djuk bZekunkjh rFkk ikjnf'kZrk dk izrhd gSA foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj Hkh 2 izfr'kr lhesaV de mi;ksx gksus ij dk;Z foHkkxh; fof'kf"V;ksa ds vuq:i fu"ikfnr ekuk tkrk gSA vr% dk;Z lEiw.kZ gksus ij 50 FkSys lhesaV cpuk rFkk mldk foHkkx ds LVksj esa tek djuk dksbZ nks"kiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ugha gSA dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk bUMsUM ij izkfIr gLrk{kj dj Bsdsnkj ds i{k esa i`"Bys[ku ( ,.MksjlesaV ) djuk vuqcaf/kr 'krZ ds v/khu Bsdsnkj dh ifjogu rFkk dk;Z LFky ij lqjf{kr Hk.Mkj.k dh ftEesnkjh ds e/;sutj ,d LFkkfir ijEijk gSA ;g izfdz;k bl dk;Z fo'ks"k esa gh ugha viuk;h xbZ gS oju~ vu; duf"B vfHk;Urkvksa }kjk muds v/khu py jgs dk;ksZ ij Hkh viuh; tkrh jgh gSA vr% bl dkj.k ls vfu;kstu dk dk;Z ;qfDr laxr vk/kkj ugha gSA bl laca/k esa vf/k'kk"kh xax ugj nf{k.k [k.M Jhxaxkuxj us vius i= dzekad 9532 fnukad 15-12-2005 esa vafdr fd;k gS fd eSllZ vafdrk ,uvjizkbZtst Jhxaxkuxj ls bl laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k ekSds ds baftfu;lZ ls tkudkjh yh xbZ rFkk muds }kjk ekSds Hkh ns[kk x;kA rn~uqlkj rF;kRed fLFkfr ;g gS fd Bsdsnkj dks 350 FkSys lhesaV dk bUMsUV fnukad 23-11-2005 dks tkjh fd;k FkkA fnukad 09-12-2005 dks foHkkxh; LVksj ls 350 FkSys tkjh fd;s x;sA ugj canh ugha feyus ds dkj.k Bsdsnkj }kjk lhesaV nsjh ls mBk;k x;kA Bsdsnkj dk ,p0,p0 forfjdk dh vkj0Mh0 5&20 ij fuekZ.k dk;Z py jgk FkkA Bsdsnkj }kjk bl lhesaV dks fueZy flag uked O;fDr ds edku esa mrjok;k x;kA fueZy flag dk ?kj lkbZV ls fudVre nwjh ij gS blfy;s lhesaV dks lqjf{kr j[kus ds mn~ns'; ls 'kk;n ;gk j[kok;k x;kA VqdM+ksa esa ugha mrkj dj lkbZV ds utnhd ds edku lslaiw.kZ tkjh lhesaV mlh jkst mrkjk x;k blfy;s Bsdsnkj dh uh;r esa fdlh izdkj lhesaV cspus dh dksbZ nqHkkZouk izrhr ugha gksrhA ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd bl Bsdsnkj dk fiNyk fjdkMZ vPNk jgk gS rFkk bl izdkj dh dksbZ f'kdk;r iwoZ esa bl foHkkx dks ugha feyh gSA blds vfrfjDr ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd lhesaV fu/kkZfjr ekin.M vuqlkj yxk;k tkrk jgk gS ,oa rn~uqlkj Bsdsnkj dks vko';drk uqlkj lhesaV tkjh dh tkrh gSa dk;Z dh xq.koRrk vkfn dh tkap gsrq ljdkj }kjk xq.k fu;a=.k [k.M LFkkfir gS rFkk bl xq.k fu;a=.k [k.M Jhxaxkuxj }kjk vyx ls tkap le; le; ij dh tkrh gSA vr%izdj.k esa lhesaV cspus dh lEHkkouk ux.; gSA ugj canh 10-12-2005 dks gksuh FkhA blh fnukad ls gh dk;Z djok;k tk jgk gSA izdj.k iSjk 7 ds dze esa vfUre fu.kZ; gsrq izLrqr gSA " 6. The Chief Engineer on basis of the record again reached at the conclusion that no wrong was committed by the petitioner that may warrant his prosecution under the Act of 1988.7. The Chief Engineer on basis of the record again reached at the conclusion that no wrong was committed by the petitioner that may warrant his prosecution under the Act of 1988.7. The matter was again placed before the Government where a detailed note was made by the Assistant Secretary and that reads as follows:- ;g izdj.k Hkz"Vpkj fujks/kd C;wjksa esa ntZ vijk/k la[;k 189@06 fo:) Jh n;kjke] dfu"B vfHk;Urk] flpkabZ ,oa vU; ls lacaf/kr gSA izdj.k esa Jh n;jke ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksx pykus gsrq C;wjksa us vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr pkgh gSA C;wjks dh fjiksVZ i`"B 2 ls 7lh ij ,oa vfHk;kstu dh Lohd`fr dk izk:i i`"B 12 ls 14@lh ij layXu gSA Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds fu;qfDr ,oa vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh eq[; vfHk;Urk] chlyiqj ifj;kstuk ,oa laLFkkiu ( vjktif=r ) t;iqj gSA buds }kjk vuq01 ls 9@,u ,ao 12 ls 19@,u ij izdj.k dk ijh{k.k dj fVIi.kh nsrs gq, Jh n;kjke ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh ugha djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS rFkk bl gsrq dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 30-05-2001 ds rgr lrdZrk vk;qDr egksn; dh Lohd`fr pkgh gSA Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dh fjiksvj~ ds vuqlkj Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;ark ,oa Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;ark ,oa Jh xksfoUn jke Bsdsnkj us vkilh feyh Hkxr dj xaxkugj dh ,p0,p0 ekbZuj dh vkj0Mh0 5 ls 20 ds fuekZ.k esa mi;ksx esa yh tkus okyh 350 cSx lhesaV [kqnZcqnZ djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA C;wjks dks bl vk'k; dh lwpuk feyus ij ekSds ij tkdj tkap dh xbZA tkap esa ik;k fd fuekZ.k LFky ij 106 cSx lhesaV miyC/k gksrs gq, Hkh Bsdsnkj }kjk 350 cSx lhesaV vkSj b';w djok;s x;sA bl lhesaV dks lkbZV ij ugha ys tkdj cktkj esa cspus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA cktkj esa ugha fcdus ij lhesaV dks ,d O;fDr fo'ks"k ds edku esa j[kk x;kA pSfdax ds nkSjku Bsdsnkj ds ikl LVkWd jftLV~j ugha ik;k x;kA ekSds ij dfu"B vfHk;ark ,oa LVksj eqa'kh miyC/k ugha gq,s vkSj u gh lkbZV LVksj d LVksd jftLV~j miyC/k djk;k x;kA C;wjks }kjk vuqla/kku ds nkSjku Jh jktdqekj jktLo iVokjh] Jh lq'kkhy dqekj dfu"B fyfid vkfn ds c;ku fy;s x;s tks i=koyh esa miyC/k ugha gSA bl laca/k esa eq[; vfHk;ark us viuh fVIi.kh esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd ugj canh dks ns[krs gq;s fnukad 09-02-2005 dks 350 cSx lhesaV ds Bsdsnkj ds }kjk tkjh djok;s x;sA okLro esa ugj canh fnukad 12-12-2005 dks gqbZA lkbZV ij foHkkx dk xksnke ugha gksus ds dkj.k lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls Bsdsnkj }kjk lhesaV dks lkbZV ds lehiLFk edku esa j[kok;k x;kA blesa dfu"B vfHk;ark ,ao Bsdsnkj dh dksbZ nqHkkZouk ugha jgh gSA ugj esa ikuh izokfgr gksus ds dkj.k fuekZ.k dk;Z can FkkA ugj canh fnukad 12-12-2005 dks gqbZA fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy, fnukad 09-12-2005 dks 350 cSx lhesaV ds foHkkxh; LVksj ls izkIr dj Bsdsnkj }kjk fuekZ.k LFky ds lehi Jh fueZyflag ds edku esa j[kok;s xbZA lkbZV ij 106 cSx lhesaV ds igys ls miyC/k FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa fuekZ.k dk;Z izkjEHk djus ls rhu fnol iwoZ vkSj lhesaV tkjh djokdj O;fDr fo'ks"k ds edku esa j[kokuk foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqdwy ugha FkkA ;g Hkh lEHko Fkk fd lkbZV ij miyC/k lhesaV ls dk;Z izkjEHk djok;k tkrk rFkk 'ks"k dke esa vkus okyh vuqekfur lhesaV VqdM+ksa esa foHkkxh; LVksj ls izkIr dj lh/kh lkbZV ij j[kh tkrhA vr% bl izdj.k esa foHkkxh; fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA eq[; vfHk;ark dh fVII.kh ds vuqlkj 350 cSx lhesaV esa tkjh djus o fuekZ.k LFky ds lehi j[kokus esa dfu"B vfHk;Urk o Bsdsnkj dh dksbZ cnfu;fr ugha Fkh] vfirq foHkkxh; dk;ZO;oLFkk o ugj canh ds dkj.k dk;Z dh egRorrk dks /;ku esa j[k dj ,slk fd;k x;k fuekZ.k ds mijkUr cps gq, 50 lhesaV ds cSx Bsdsnkj }kjk foHkkxh; LVksj esa tek djok;s x;s gSA blls Li"V gS fd Bsdsnkj dh dksbZ cnfu;fr ugha FkhA vr% izdj.k esa Jh n;kjke ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh djus dk izdj.k ugha curk gSA oLrqfLFkfr dh fjiksVZ voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA " 8. The Assistant Secretary too was of the view that no ill intention was there in keeping the cement bags at a private place, therefore, the sanction for prosecution is not desirable to be accorded.9. The matter then was placed before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources, who sought deliberations with the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Necessary consideration was made in this regard too and after examining the statements given by the prosecution witnesses during the course of investigation, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan again made a detailed report, wherein too he reached at the conclusion that grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the Act of 1988 shall not be appropriate. The report submitted by the Assistant Secretary reads as under:- bl izdj.k dk iwoZ esa vuq0 21&30@,u ij ijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA vuq0 30@,u dh ikyuk esa Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd ls xokgksa ds c;kuksa dh izfr;ka izkIr dh xbZ] tks i`"B 22 ls 23@lh ij layXu gSA C;wjks }kjk fuEu xokgksa ds c;ku ntZ fd;s x;s gSA 1- Jh jkedqekj] gYdk iVokjh] yV~Bkokyh] Jh xaxkuxjA 2- Jh lq'khy dqekj dfu"B fyfid] jktho xka/kh ikB'kkyk] 20 thth Jh xaxkuxj 3- Jh tujsyflag] M~kbZoj 4- Jh fd'kuyky] M~kbZoj 5- Jh jktw ckxMh] M~kbZoj 6- Jh nsojkt nk/kht] lgk;d vfHk;Urk ,oa Vh, vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] xaxugj nf{k.k [k.M] Jh xaxkuxjA 7- Jh gqde pUn lq/kkj] [k.Mh; ys[kkdkjA 8- Jh daoj fd'ku] dfu"B fyfid] dk;kZy; vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] xaxugj nf{k.k [k.M Jh xaxkuxjA 9- Jh galjkt lsoVk] d`"kdA 10- Jh eksguyky 'kekZ] d`"kdA 11- Jh jrhjke /krjoky] vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk xaxugj nf{k.k [k.M] Jh xaxkuxjA mDr lHkh xokgksa ds c;kuksa esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd xaxkuxj dh ,p0,p0 ekbZuj dh vkj0Mh0 5 ls 20 ds fuekZ.k ds fy, mi;ksx esa yh tkus okyh 350 cSx lhesaV laosnd }kjk LVksj ls tkjh djokdj fnukad 09-12-2005 dks Jh fueZyflag ,oa Jh eksguyky 'kekZ ds futh edku esa j[kok;h xbZA fu;ekuqlkj fuekZ.k gsrq tkjh djok;h xbZ lhesaV fuekZ.kLFky ij foHkkx ds LVksj esa j[kh tkuh pkfg, FkhA lgk;d vfHk;Urk Jh nsojkt nk/khp ds c;ku i`"B 28@lh esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd laosnd }kjk fuekZ.k lkbZV ds xksnke esa lhesaV ugha j[kokdj Jh fueZyflag ds futh edku esa j[kokuk xyr FkkA vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk ds c;ku i`"B 33@lh esa vafdr fd;k x;k fd ugjksa dh fuekZ.k lkbZV ij foHkkx ds LVksj ugha cus gq, gS] cfYd ugj fuekZ.kLFky ds utnhd tks dksbZ izkbZosV edku miyC/k gksrk gS] mlesa Bsdsnkj }kjk lhesaV j[kh tkrh gSA bldh lwpuk laosnd }kjk lacaf/kr dfu"B vfHk;Urk ,oa mPpkf/kdkjh dks nsuk vko';d gSA dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk ekSds ij tkdj lhesaV dks pSd dj mldk bUnzkt LVksd jftLV~j esa djuk vko';d gSA C;wjks dh fjiksVZ esa blh rF; ij Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa pkyku izLrqr djus ds fy, vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ekaxh xbZ] fd bUgksaus Bsdsnkj ls lkaBxkaB dj ugj fuekZ.k ds fy, tkjh djok;h xbZ 350 cSx lhesaV [kqnZcqnZ dj cspus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa eq[; vfHk;Urk] chlyiqj ifj;kstuk us vu0 16@,u ij fVIi.kh dh gS fd Jh fueZyflag dk edku fuekZ.k lkbZV ds utnhd FkkA vr% lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls Bsdsnkj }kjk lhesaV ;gka j[kok;h xbZ FkhA blesa Bsdsnkj dh lhesaV dks cspus dh nqHkkZouk izrhr ugha gksrhA C;wjksa dh fjiksVZ xokgksa ds c;ku ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk] chlyiqj ifj;kstuk dh fVIi.kh dk foopsu djus ds mijkUr Li"V gksrk gS fd ugj fuekZ.k lkbZV ij foHkkx dk LVksj ugha gksus ds dkj.k lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls Bsdsnkj }kjk lhesaV lkbZV ds utnhdh futh edku esa j[kok;h xbZA blesa =qfV ;g jgh fd lhesaV futh edku esa j[kokus ls iwoZ fu;ekuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk bldh lwpuk lEcfU/kr dfu"B vfHk;Urk ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks nh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] tks ugha nh xbZA dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk bl lhesaV dk LVkd jftLV~j esa bUnzkt fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tks C;wjksa dh tkap rd ugha fd;k x;kA vr% bl izdj.k esa foHkkxh; izfdz;k ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus esa ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gSA eq[; vfHk;Urk us bl izdj.k esa Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;Urk ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha ekuk gS] fdUrq foHkkxh; izfdz;k ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh ugha djus ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls bUgs eqDr fd;k tkuk Hkh mi;ZqDr ugha gksxkA vr% bl izdj.k esa buds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrkA vr% Jh n;kjke dfu"B vfHk;ark ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh ugha djus dh vuq'kalk ds lkFk i=koyh eq[; lrZdrk ( vk;qDr izeq[k 'kklu lfpo] x`g foHkkx ) dks mudh Lohd`fr gsrq Hkstk tkuk lehfpu gksxkA blds lkFk gh Jh n;kjke ds }kjk foHkkxh; izfdz;k ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh ugha dj vius drZO; ikyu esa ykijokgh cjrs tkus ds dkj.k buds fo:) lh0lh0,0 fu;eksa ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq eq[; vfHk;Urk] fclyiqj ifj;kstuk ( vjktif=r ) dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk Hkh mfpr gksxkA " 10. The matter was then placed before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Home Affairs-cum-Chief Vigilance Commissioner, who made a note in following terms:- "It cant be a mere coincidence that the cement was kept in private house without following proper procedure. The argument are being stretched too far to save the public servant from criminal liability. This is a fit case to be referred to ACB Court for adjudication." (Emphasis supplied)11. The entire record record then was sent to the Chief Engineer, SWRPD and Establishment (Non- Gazetted), Rajasthan for grant of necessary sanction in compliance of the note made by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. The Chief Engineer then under the order impugned granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.12. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 the authority competent for grant of sanction is the authority i.e. competent to remove a public servant from office and in this matter it is the Chief Engineer, SWRPD and Establishment (Non-Gazetted), Rajasthan. However, his power for grant of such sanction has been abducted by the Chief Vigilance 15 Commissioner. The competent authority as per provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 considered the entire matter thoroughly at least twice and such consideration was made after making necessary deliberations with the competent officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau. A definite conclusion arrived as a process of consideration was for not granting the sanction for prosecution, but the Chief Vigilance Commissioner prescribed mandate for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner, thus, the Chief Engineer, who earlier denied for grant of sanction by due application of mind, granted sanction for prosecution just to comply with the directions so given. As per the petitioner such grant of sanction is bad, being giving without application of mind and being a decision borrowed.13. As per the petitioner such grant of sanction is bad, being giving without application of mind and being a decision borrowed.13. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of this Court in Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2009(3) WLC (Raj.) 128 , holding therein as under:- "Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with previous sanction for any person not covered under Section 19 (1)(a) and 19(1)(b) by the authority competent to remove him from his office. In 16 the instant matter admittedly the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office is the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation. The Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation on 19.12.1997 after considering all necessary facts reached at a definite conclusion regarding non-involvement of the petitioner with regard to any deal relating to the complainant Sh. Shankar Lal. Accordingly, a conscious decision was taken after consulting Addl. Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Sriganganagar and Superintendent of Police (Third), Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur for not granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It is only the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan who instructed the Chief Engineer to issue sanction required for prosecution of the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Chief Engineer by the order dated 15.10.1999 simply by acting upon the instructions given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan under the letter dated 23.9.1999 granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The order dated 15.10.1999 no where reflects application of mind by the authority competent. The Chief Engineer being the authority competent for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Act of 1988 was required to apply his mind objectively before granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. He is not supposed to act merely as an orderly to execute command of an administrative officer. By a statute an important power is conferred upon him and 17 such power must be exercised objectively, independently and by due application of mind. 14. He is not supposed to act merely as an orderly to execute command of an administrative officer. By a statute an important power is conferred upon him and 17 such power must be exercised objectively, independently and by due application of mind. 14. In the present case a conscious decision was taken by the competent authority on 19.12.1997 after making necessary consultation with responsible Police Officers for not granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Such an important decision stood altered by the Chief Engineer in highly casual manner just on receiving instructions from Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. May this alteration be due to fear psychosis or due to a tendency to accept every instruction given by the administrative authorities, even by ignoring statutory obligations but the resultant is abduction of powers of the competent authority by Deputy Secretary of the Government. The Government, if was not satisfied with the decision taken by the competent authority, could have suggested its view with cogent reasons to reconsider the decision, but in no event it was proper to give command to the authority competent having statutory power for granting sanction for prosecution. The irritating feature of the case is that the competent authority has given sanction to prosecute the petitioner without application of mind just by acting upon instruction given by a person who is otherwise stranger, so far as the requirement of statute is concerned. Therefore, such order can very well be termed as an order without jurisdiction."15. Reliance is also placed upon a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash Bhatia and 18 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 590/2010, decided on 10.12.2010 , wherein it was held as under:- "The authority competent to remove a public servant from service is clothed with the power to grant sanction for prosecution to such public servant by the Legislature with a definite intention as that authority being having administrative and disciplinary control on the person concerned is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation on basis of intimate knowledge of the work and conduct and also having day to day knowledge of overall administrative interest of the department. The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the person facing accusation. The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the person facing accusation. The authority competent while granting sanction is also required to record reasons for launching prosecution and is further required to specify its need in public interest. This important duty can be discharged only on independent application of mind to all the relevant facts on basis of which prosecution is proposed. If any extraneous pressure is mounted on the authority competent then there shall be all chances of frivolous and malicious prosecution. To maintain the spirit of the provisions for the grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant, the authority competent is required to act independently, objectively and with an intention for not saving a culprit from prosecution but at the 19 same time with a view to afford a reasonable protection to a public servant from unnecessary harassment and undue hardship through vexatious prosecution. Keeping in mind, the above mentioned intention of the Legislature, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan (supra) authoritatively held that the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. For the same reason, this Court too in the case of Kishan Lal (supra) held that the statutory power given to the authority competent is required to be exercised by the authority concerned and not by any body else." 16. Meeting with the contention advanced by counsel for the petitioner, it is urged by counsel for the respondents that no mandate was given by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, but an advice was tendered to reconsider the matter and the competent authority just by acting upon such an advice considered the matter afresh and after due application of mind granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It is asserted that when the sanction itself is very expressive referring all events, evidence and conduct of the petitioner then normal presumption is the power must have been exercised after adequate application of mind. It is asserted that when the sanction itself is very expressive referring all events, evidence and conduct of the petitioner then normal presumption is the power must have been exercised after adequate application of mind. While placing reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment in C.S. Krishnarnurthy v. State of Karnataka, 20 reported in AIR 2005 SC 2790 , it is urged by counsel for the respondents that this Court should not draw the inference about non-application of mind when the sanction order is speaking, self-expressive and is signed by the prescribed authority as per provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988.17. Heard counsel for the parties.18. From the facts stated earlier it is apparent that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner at the first instance after considering all relevant facts decided not to grant such sanction. The matter then was considered at the Government level and a direction was given to the Chief Engineer to consider the matter afresh by keeping in mind the averments contained in para "A" page 3/c of the report given by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The competent authority reconsidered the matter and on 11.6.2008 made a detailed comment with definite conclusion that no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is desirable. The matter then was placed before the Assistant Secretary of the Government who too after considering the matter arrived at a conclusion for not granting the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The matter then was considered after having deliberations with the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau and a detailed report then was submitted, wherein too a decision was 21 taken for not granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. At this stage, it was certainly observed that the disciplinary action may be initiated against the public servant (petitioner) for supervisory negligence. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, without considering the details given by the competent authority for grant of sanction and also by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, made a note that instant one is a fit case to be referred to ACB Court for adjudication. The note made by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, as quoted in preceding paras, clearly shows care free and casual approach while considering the report submitted by the competent officers. The note made by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, as quoted in preceding paras, clearly shows care free and casual approach while considering the report submitted by the competent officers. If the Chief Vigilance Commissioner was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration or if he was of the opinion that on basis of the material available a prima facie case is there to prosecute the petitioner, then he should have mentioned all necessary details of such material while making comment on the report submitted by the competent authorities. Instead of doing so, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner proceeded just to issue mandate regarding fitness of the case for adjudication by ACB Court. The Chief Engineer, who earlier after considering the entire material, changed his opinion on basis of the comment made by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. The facts clearly depict that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is granted only under the instructions of the Chief Vigilance 22 Commissioner and not by independent application of mind by the competent authority.19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.S. Krishnarnurthy's case (supra) certainly held that when the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, becomes unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case aforesaid also held that the sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. However, that was not the case where a definite opinion was formed by the competent authority and on basis of such opinion a conclusive decision was taken, but that was changed subsequently merely on basis of a mandate issued by the some other authority who as a matter of fact is stranger in view of the provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988. For the reason above, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnarnurthy's case (supra) is having no application in the matter in hand. The sanction granted under the order impugned is not an out come of independent application of mind but is under the mandate of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. For the reason above, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnarnurthy's case (supra) is having no application in the matter in hand. The sanction granted under the order impugned is not an out come of independent application of mind but is under the mandate of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. Accordingly, the same is bad in view of the law laid 23 down by this Court in the cases of Kishanlal (supra) and Subhash Bhatia (supra).20. The writ petition, for the reasons mentioned above, deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 11.11.2009, issued by the Chief Engineer, SWRPD and Establishment (Non-Gazetted), Rajasthan, while exercising powers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, is quashed. However, quashing of the order aforesaid in no manner will preclude the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by independent application of mind.No order to costs.Petition Allowed. *******