ORDER 1. The petitioner is the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate. He is facing prosecution for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent laid the final report after obtaining sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Criminal M.P. No. 726 of 2009 before the Special Court seeking discharge from the case on the ground that the cognizance taken by the Special Court is not valid, inasmuch as there was no valid sanction issued by the competent authority to remove the petitioner from service as dealt with in Section 19 of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by the lower Court by the order dated 25.05.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed only by the Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, by his proceedings in Order No. 5(4) 31490/2004-2 dated 06.10.2005 and 5(4)/31490/2004-3 dated 06.10.2005. In pursuance of the said order of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 121312/2004/G1 dated 19.10.2005, appointed him as Village Administrative Officer for Ponnamangalam Revenue Village. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, submit that since the petitioner was appointed by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, he is the competent authority to remove him from service. The learned counsel would further point out that as per Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the authority, who is lower in rank than that of the competent authority cannot remove a person from service. 4. In this case, according to the learned counsel, since the appointment was made by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the Revenue Divisional officer, Usilampatti, who is only a subordinate to him is not competent to grant sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act and therefore, the order taking cognizance based on the said sanction order is void. 4. In this case, according to the learned counsel, since the appointment was made by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the Revenue Divisional officer, Usilampatti, who is only a subordinate to him is not competent to grant sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act and therefore, the order taking cognizance based on the said sanction order is void. 5. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this petition. According to him, so far as the post of Village Administrative Officer is concerned, the competent authority to appoint him is only a Revenue Divisional Officer. In this case, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to remove him from service and accordingly, he has given sanction under Section 19 of the Act for prosecuting the petitioner, in which, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no infirmity. Therefore, according to him, the lower Court was right in dismissing the petition, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. The post of Village Administrative Officer in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed not by any administrative order of the Government, but by the Act of State Legislature. Prior to the introduction of the Village Administrative Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu, there were the post of Part Time Village Officers. Then came, the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time Village Officers Act (3 of 1981), by which, the post of Part Time Village Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu were all abolished with effect from the date of commencement of the said Act. In that place, the posts of Village Administrative Officers were created and the said post is governed by the said Act. 8. In that place, the posts of Village Administrative Officers were created and the said post is governed by the said Act. 8. Section 4(1) of the Act 3 of 1981 speaks of appointment of Village Administrative Officer, which reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and the rules made under Section 6, the competent authority may appoint a person as Village Administrative Officer for one or more revenue villages.” Sub section (2) of Section 4 reads as follows: “No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer unless he possesses the minimum general educational qualification referred to in rule 12(a)(i) of Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and prescribed in Schedule 1 to the said Part (II).” 9. The term 'competent authority' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act 3 of 1981, which reads as follows: “Competent authority means - (i) In the Madras District, the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras. (ii) In other districts, the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the revenue village within his division.” 10. In view of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that the competent authority to appoint a Village Administrative Officer for any village is only the Revenue Divisional Officer in the Districts other than the Madras District. In the case on hand, the petitioner during the relevant period was working in Usilampatti, Madurai District. Therefore, his appointing authority as per the above Act is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. 11. At this juncture, we may have also a look into Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as follows: “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution (1) 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 the previous sanction:- (a) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government. (b) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government. (b) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government. (c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” 12. As per sub section (1)(c) of Section 19 of the Act as referred to above, the authority competent to remove a public servant from his office alone is competent to grant sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Article 311 of the Constitution of India, such order of removal from service cannot be made by an authority, who is subordinate to the appointing authority. 13. In the case on hand, since the Revenue Divisional Officer is the statutory authority, who has got competence to appoint a Village Administrative Officer, he has got power to remove such Village Administrative Officer from his post. Thus, it is crsytal clear that the sanctioning authority for the purposes of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Village Administrative Officer is only the Revenue Divisional Officer of the Division concerned. But, in the case on hand, according to the learned counsel, the appointment order was issued by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not competent to grant sanction. This argument, in my considered opinion, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. 14. First of all, in this case, the petitioner was earlier working as a Part Time Village Officer, he lost his job on account of the abolition of the post as per the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time Village Officers Act (3 of 1981). Several such persons, who lost their job, made representations to the Government to rehabilitate them by appointing them as Village Administrative Officers. The Government took a policy decision to appoint those Village Officers, who lost their job on account of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time Village Officers Act, as Village Administrative Officers, provided, they satisfied the other requirements including the essential qualifications prescribed under the Act 3 of 1981 itself. 15. The Government took a policy decision to appoint those Village Officers, who lost their job on account of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time Village Officers Act, as Village Administrative Officers, provided, they satisfied the other requirements including the essential qualifications prescribed under the Act 3 of 1981 itself. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioner, who was the erstwhile Part Time Village Officer, was ordered to be appointed by the Government by showing concession. That concession does not mean that the appointment was made by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. When the field is governed by the statute, which declares that the competent authority is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is fallacious to contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority, but instead the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is the competent authority to grant sanction. This argument is, therefore, rejected. In my considered view, the lower Court was right in dismissing the petition. 16. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit at all in the criminal revision petition. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed.