Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Nakedar in the Mining department of the State of Rajasthan was placed under suspension vide order Annex.2 dated 26.7.2004. The basis of the suspension order was that when the check post, where the petitioner was posted, was inspected by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau, the petitioner was found absent therefrom and the official receipt book, which had been issued to the petitioner, had been handed over to private persons. 3. The petitioner’s suspension order was revoked by order Annex.3 dated 29.11.2005. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to herein after as Ganga Ram. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3. The petitioner’s suspension order was revoked by order Annex.3 dated 29.11.2005. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to herein after as Ganga Ram. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served to the petitioner containing the following 4 charges :- vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 1 ;g fd vki Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk dk;kZy; lgk;d] [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj ds v/khu ukdsnkj ds in ij dk;kZy; vkns’k dzekad l[kv@tkyksj LFkk@03@916] fnukad 18-10-2003 ls fujUrj Hk:Mh] [kkuiqj ukds ij fu;qDr FksA fnukad 15-7-2004 dks tc vkidh M~;wVh Hk:Mh ukds ij Fkh vUrxZr [kkuiqj ukdk vkrk gS] Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks fljksgh }kjk pSfdax djus ij vki fnukad 15-7-2004 dks ukds ij mifLFkfr ugha feysA bl izdkj vki viuh M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa vuq’kklughu ik;s x;sA ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 2 ;g fd mDr xaxkjke lka[kyk ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku oDr fujh{k.k ,d futh O;fDr ds ikl foHkkxh; jkW;YVh jlhn cqd la[;k ftlesa jlhn la[;k 8101 ls 8150 Fkh] [kkuiqj foHkkxh; ukds ij futh O;fDr ds ikl x;hA ;g jlhn cqd dk;kZy; ls vkids uke fnukad 11-6-2004 dks tkjh dh x;h FkhA vkius foHkkxh; jlhn cqd dks futh O;fDr ds gkFk esa nsdj ljdkjh dk;Z esa ykijokgh n’kkZbZ gSA ;g drZO; vkidh xSj ftEesnkjhiw.kZ gS ,oa lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k ik;h x;h gSA ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 3 ;g fd mDr Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku oDr fujh{k.k ik;k x;k fd og O;fDr ftlds ikl foHkkxh; jlhn cqd Fkh mlh ds ikl voS/k :i ls futh jlhnsa Hkh Fkh ftlls fd ;g jkW;YVh dh olwyh dj jgk Fkk ftlls foHkkx dks jktLo dk uqdlku gqvk ,oa bldh tkudkjh vkidks gksus ij Hkh vki Jh lka[kyk }kjk lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark] tkyksj dks bldh tkudkjh ugha nh xbZ ,oa ,oa rF; lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj ds /;ku esa ugha yk djds xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh dh gS] ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 4 ;g fd mDr Jh xaxkjke ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku ctjh jkW;YVh ukdk [kkuiqj esa fnukad 1-7- 2004 ls 15 -7-2004 rd nSfud olwyh jkf’k dk fooj.k ,d lknh dkWih esa vafdr fd;k gqvk ik;k x;k ftlesa nSfud ctjh ls tkus okys okguksa dk fooj.k] Vªd] VªsDVj ls olwyh dh xbZ jkf’k dk fooj.k vafdr fd;k gqvk ik;k x;kA mijksDr ctjh ukdksa ls voS/k olwyh djus okys Bsdsnkj ds deZpkfj;ksa us voS/k jlhns cqdsa Jh egsUnz flag ,oa Jh fodzeflag fuoklh nklik }kjk mUgsa nsuk rFkk izfr fnu olwyh dk fglkc ,oa Hkjh gqbZ jlhn cqdsa iqu% izkIr djuk crk;kA Bsdnkj ds deZpkfj;ksa us [kfut foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa dk ukdksa ij vkuk tkuk Hkh crk;kA ;g rF; bl ckr dks n’kkZrk gS fd vkids ukds ij voS/k jlhnksa ls Bsdnkjksa }kjk jkW;YVh olwyh dh tk jgh Fkh ijUrq vkius bldh lwpuk vkius fu;U=d vf/kdkjh lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj dks ugh nh ftlls bl laca/k esa dksbZ izHkkoh dk;Zokgh ugh gks ldhA bl izdkj vki inh; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj ykijokgh xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ,oa lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k jgh gSA ftlds fy, vki lka[kyk mrjnk;h gSA 4. The inquiry officer appointed to conduct the inquiry, exonerated the petitioner of the charges no.1, 3 & 4 but held him guilty of the charge no.2 vide inquiry report Annex.6 dated 13.6.2007. The petitioner’s defence regarding the charge no.1 that he had to leave the check post on account of acute tooth pain was accepted by the inquiry officer while exonerating the petitioner of the said charge. 5. An F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner in the Anti Corruption Bureau with almost similar allegations. After concluding investigation, the concerned officer of ACB, Pali prepared a draft sanction and forwarded it to the petitioner’s appointing authority i.e. Director, Mines & Geology, Udaipur. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and his explanation was sought on the question of sanction. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and prayed for dropping the matter. It is claimed in the writ petition that, without application of mind to the facts of the case, without considering the petitioner’s reply and without even referring to the findings of the inquiry officer on the charges no.1, 3 & 4, the sanctioning authority proceeded to accord prosecution sanction against the petitioner by order Annex.9 dated 31.7.2009. 6. Pursuant to the prosecution sanction being granted, the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order Annex.10 dated 10.8.2009 on the ground that the sanction had been granted by the competent authority to prosecute him for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and thus, he was being placed under suspension in reference to the circular dated 10.8.2001 issued by the State Government in which it is stipulated that as soon as the sanction for prosecution is granted against a Government employee in a case involving the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he is required to be placed under suspension without exception. 7. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid two orders Annex.9 and Annex.10 by preferring two separate writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.9599/2009 and 9598/2009 before this Court. 8. At the first instance, whilst considering the writ petition no.9598/2009 and issuing notices to the respondents, this Court stayed the suspension order dated 10.8.2009. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order Annex.12 dated 6.1.2010. 9. 8. At the first instance, whilst considering the writ petition no.9598/2009 and issuing notices to the respondents, this Court stayed the suspension order dated 10.8.2009. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order Annex.12 dated 6.1.2010. 9. The other writ petition no.9599/2009, challenging the sanction order dated 31.7.2009 came to be allowed by this Court vide order Annex.13 dated 13.12.2010, holding that the sanction order suffered from total non-application of mind as the same was a verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction proposed by the investigating officer. While deciding the writ petition and quashing the sanction order, this Court left the competent authority at liberty to reconsider the matter afresh at its own discretion for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the matter was again taken up by the competent authority and once again, sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by order dated 17.1.2012. Pursuant to the said order granting prosecution, another order Annex.14 dated 17.1.2012 came to be passed, whereby the petitioner was again placed under suspension on the ground that sanction to prosecute him for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been granted by the competent authority. The petitioner claims that he was not provided with a copy of the sanction order whereupon he filed an application under the Right to Information Act and procured a copy thereof. The petitioner has further claimed in the pleadings that on going through the sanction order Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, he realized that the so-called fresh sanction order was nothing but a reproduction of the earlier prosecution sanction order dated 31.7.2009 which in itself was a verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction prepared and forwarded by the ACB to the respondent no.2 and had been quashed by this Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.2010 passed in writ petition no. 9599/2009. 10. In the meantime, the inquiry report, whereby the petitioner was exonerated of the charges no.1, 3 & 4 and was held responsible for charge no.2 was taken up for consideration by the disciplinary authority being the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Personnel, who by order Annex.17 dated 3.2.2010, while disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, held the petitioner guilty of all the 4 charges and imposed upon him, penalty of withholding of 2 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It is claimed that the petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring a departmental appeal, which is reportedly still pending consideration. The principal reason for disagreement with the inquiry officer’s findings, as communicated to the petitioner by letter Annex.16 dated 3.8.2009, was that the ACB after investigating the matter had taken a decision to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner and as such, it could be presumed that all the charges were established against him. 11. The petitioner has thus approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the order Annex.14 dated 17.1.2012, placing him under suspension and the order Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, according sanction to prosecute him for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned orders were passed in total disregard of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by this Court in writ petition no.9599/2008. He contended that while deciding the said writ petition, this Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the disciplinary authority, while reconsidering the case for grant of fresh sanction, was required to apply its mind to the facts of the case independently, without being influenced by the draft sanction proposed by the ACB. He submitted that a bare glance at the order Annex.15, granting fresh prosecution sanction would establish that the same is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of the earlier sanction order dated 31.7.2009 which was quashed by this Court by order dated 13.12.2010. He further submitted that for the very same reasons, the order of suspension Annex.14 is also bad in eye of law. He contended that in relation to the very same charges, the petitioner had already been placed under suspension vide order dated 26.7.2004, which was thereafter revoked suo moto vide order dated 29.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated and was performing his duties with sincerity and dedication and without any complaint whatsoever. He was again placed under suspension vide order dated 10.8.2009 on the basis of the State Government circular dated 10.8.2001 because sanction to prosecute him was granted for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated and was performing his duties with sincerity and dedication and without any complaint whatsoever. He was again placed under suspension vide order dated 10.8.2009 on the basis of the State Government circular dated 10.8.2001 because sanction to prosecute him was granted for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He contended that this Court whilst quashing the suspension order dated 10.8.2009, held in no uncertain terms that the powers of the competent authority to place an employee under suspension cannot be curbed through an administrative circular by imposing a mandate upon the discretion available to the competent authority under a Statute i.e. the CCA Rules of 1958. 13. A copy of the proposal of draft sanction to prosecute the petitioner in the second round has been placed on record as Annex.A/18 along with an additional affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on going through the draft sanction, it is evident that even the “change in language” which is relied upon in the reply of the State, in order to project that the order granting sanction was passed by the competent authority after holding deliberations with the investigating officer and with an independent application of mind to the facts of the case, was also proposed by the investigating agency itself. He thus, contended that the writ petition deserves acceptance and the impugned order Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, whereby fresh sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner and the impugned order Annex.14 dated 17.1.2012, placing the petitioner under suspension deserve to be quashed as being grossly arbitrary, illegal and having been passed with total non application of mind. 14. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. counsel appearing for the State attempted to support the orders impugned. She contended that on the first occasion, the petitioner was reinstated in service by revoking his suspension vide order dated 29.11.2005 with a specific stipulation that the reinstatement would not prejudicially affect the proposed departmental inquiry against him. She submitted that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.1.2012 with an independent application of mind to the facts of the case and by recording its objective satisfaction. She submitted that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.1.2012 with an independent application of mind to the facts of the case and by recording its objective satisfaction. She vehemently contended that the language of the impugned sanction order is neither a reproduction of the earlier sanction order which was quashed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction nor is it a mechanical reproduction of the proposed draft sanction submitted by the ACB. She further submitted that the State Government has issued the circular dated 10.8.2001 in order to ensure that government employees who are faced with grave offences involving charges of corruption or moral turpitude, do not continue to hold the public post till the competent court examines the validity or otherwise of the allegations. She further submitted that the circulars do not take away the discretion but are only meant to guide the competent authority on the aspect of suspension and thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders as both the orders were passed by the competent authority with an independent objective application of mind to the facts available on record. 15. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 16. Two questions are posed before the Court for consideration and adjudication in the matter namely, (1) whether the order suspending the petitioner on the basis of the second prosecution sanction can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case ? and (2) whether the prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority suffers from non-application of mind or that the same was issued objectively with an independent mind to the facts of the case without being influenced by the draft prosecution sanction proposed by the investigating agency ? 17. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the ratio of the judgment dated 13.12.2010 rendered by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition no.9599/2008 preferred by the petitioner. 17. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the ratio of the judgment dated 13.12.2010 rendered by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition no.9599/2008 preferred by the petitioner. Relevant excerpts from the judgment are quoted herein below for ready reference :- “The prosecution sanction should be a result of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority and the decision taken to and discretion exercised for granting prosecution sanction should be of the competent authority without being influenced by the draft prosecution sanction ; and the circulars in the nature of administrative instructions taking away the discretion of the competent authority on the aspect of suspension of an employee as available in the statutory Rules, cannot be approved.” The suspension of a civil servant is an administrative action and the government is having ample power to provide necessary guidelines to the competent authorities for exercising powers as per Rule 13, but at the same time it is also well settled that the administrative instructions can always be given to fill up the unoccupied field. However, a word of caution was added that such instructions in no way encroach upon the space already under occupation of a statute.” This Court after considering the language of the circular dated 10.8.2001 observed that the said circular does not provide instructions to the competent authority as to how powers under Rule 13 are required to be exercised, but on the contrary, it imposes a mandate upon the discretion of the competent authority. After considering the import of the circular vis-à-vis the Rules of 1958, it was in no unequivocal terms held that imposing such a mandate over the statutory discretion is not permissible under administrative jurisprudence. This Court further held that the suspension of an employee, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may be desired urgently or on emergent basis but in those circumstances also the competent authority must record its satisfaction for exercising powers under Rule 13. If such satisfaction is not recorded and suspension is effected merely on basis of the instructions given by the administrative circulars then that is nothing but colourable exercise of power. 18. If such satisfaction is not recorded and suspension is effected merely on basis of the instructions given by the administrative circulars then that is nothing but colourable exercise of power. 18. This Court ultimately proceeded to quash the order placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that the same was passed without adequate application of mind and by mechanical reliance upon the administrative instructions issued by the State Government in the circular dated 10.8.2001. The order granting sanction was quashed holding that the same was nothing but a pure reproduction of the draft sanction proposed by the ACB and did not reflect any independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 19. Thus, the controversy at hand is required to be examined in light of the view expressed by this Court, while deciding the petitioner’s earlier two writ petitions. 20. First coming to the order of suspension Annex. 14 dated 17.1.2012. The order reads as below:- ^^Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk] rRdkyhu eSfVªd ukdsnkj dk;kZy;&lgkd [kfut vfHk;ark] tkyksj ds fo:} Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks esa tqeZ vUrxZr /kkjk 13¼1½ lh-Mh- 13¼2½ ih-lh- ,DV 1988 ,oa lgifBr /kkjk 420] 120ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vUrxZr fopkjk/khu gksus ls bl izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh dh xbZ gSA vr% v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ jktLFkku] vlSfud lsok,¡ ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 13 ds vUrxZr izkIr vf/kdkjksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk] eSfVªd ukdsnkj dks rRdky izHkko ls fuyfEcr djrs gSA** On going through the suspension order, it is evident that though the Government instructions/circulars are not referred to in the suspension order but the fact still remains that the petitioner’s fresh suspension was ordered merely because prosecution sanction had been granted against him. It is clearly reflected from the order that the competent authority did not apply its mind independently to the facts of the case while placing the petitioner under suspension third time on the basis of the same set of facts and after 8 years of the alleged delinquency. A veiled effect of the circular dated 10.8.2001 is writ large in the order. As a consequence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension was totally influenced by the fact that prosecution sanction had been issued against him. A veiled effect of the circular dated 10.8.2001 is writ large in the order. As a consequence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension was totally influenced by the fact that prosecution sanction had been issued against him. Thus, for the very same reasoning as given by this Court in its order dated 13.12.2010 (passed in CWP No.9599/2009), the order of suspension Annex.14 is ex-facie bad in the eye of law as the same was passed without independent application of mind to the facts of the case. In this Court’s firm opinion, it was essential for the authority to consider the fact that the employee had been placed under suspension in the same matter twice earlier and on both the occasions, the suspension orders were revoked/quashed. 21. Now coming to the order Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, whereby prosecution sanction was granted against the petitioner. On going through the prosecution sanction order Annex.15 and comparing the same with the earlier sanction order Annex.9, which was quashed by this Court, it is noticed that apart from the concluding para, the subsequent order dated 17.1.2012 is virtually a verbatim reproduction of the earlier prosecution sanction order which was quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, the draft sanction proposed by the ACB as Annex.A/18, on the basis whereof, the fresh sanction order Annex.15 came to be issued. The State has not disputed that the decision to accord sanction was taken in pursuance of the proposed draft prosecution sanction Annex.A/18. A glaring fact comes to light on going through the draft sanction. The prosecuting agency even drafted the concluding portion of the sanction order wherein the conclusions drawn by the sanctioning authority are projected. The State has not disputed that the decision to accord sanction was taken in pursuance of the proposed draft prosecution sanction Annex.A/18. A glaring fact comes to light on going through the draft sanction. The prosecuting agency even drafted the concluding portion of the sanction order wherein the conclusions drawn by the sanctioning authority are projected. The concluding portion of the sanction order Annex.15 reads as below:- ^^esjs le{k izLrqr vUos”k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh- esa fy;s x;s c;kuksa lfgr leLr vfHkys[kksa ,oa mijksDr vkjksiksa rFkk izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds iw.kZ fo’ys”k.k ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k fjdkMZ dk eSusa lko/kkuhiwoZd v/;;u dj fy;k gSa rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls Hkh fjdkMZ o c;kuksa ds vuqlkj fopkj foe’kZ dj eSa foosdkuqlkj lUrq”V gksus ij bl fu.kZ; ij igaqpk gwa fd Jh xaxkjke ukdsnkj [kkuiqj dk;kZy; lgk;d [kfut vfHk;Urk] [kfut foHkkx tkyksj ds fo:} /kkjk 19 ih-lh- ,DV 1988 }kjk iznr ‘kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa vkjksih }kjk mDr vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 13¼1½ lh-Mh- 13¼2½ ih-lh- ,DV 1988 o lgifBr /kkjk 420 ,oa 120ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk fd;s tkus ij vFkok fof/k ds vU; micU/kksa ds v/khu n.Muh; fdlh vijk/k ds fy;s fo’ks”k U;k;k/kh’k] lS’ku U;k;ky; Hkz”Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e tks/kiqj vFkok l{ke U;k;ky; esa dkuwuh lywd djus o vfHk;kstu pykus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA** This para is proposed in exactly the same language in the draft sanction Annex.A/18. In this background, it is evident that the sanction order Annex.15 was passed even with greater degree of non-application of mind as compared to the earlier sanction order which was quashed by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. Even the discretionary action, required to be exclusively exercised by the competent authority was prompted by the prosecuting agency. In the backdrop of the above discussion, there is no hesitation for this Court to hold that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner vide order Annex.15 was a decision taken in utter disregard of the directions given by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The order was manifestly passed with absolute non-application of mind. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annex.14 dated 17.1.2012, placing the petitioner under suspension and Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, according sanction to prosecute him for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby quashed and set aside. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annex.14 dated 17.1.2012, placing the petitioner under suspension and Annex.15 dated 17.1.2012, according sanction to prosecute him for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is given to the competent authority to reconsider the matter for passing a fresh order of sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, if so desired and warranted in the facts of the case. It is further clarified that if the disciplinary authority takes up the matter afresh for taking a decision whether or not to issue sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, it would be well advised to consider and keep in mind the findings recorded by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report. 22. No order as to costs.