Hon'ble THAKUR, J.—By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 24.12.2009, 4.1.2010 and consequential sanction order for prosecution dated 13.1.2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer-I(Electric) in Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (for short “JVVNL”) by order dated 2.4.2007 on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,950/- per month. In June, 2008, Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi , a consumer of JVVNL lodged a complaint in the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bikaner (fort short “the ACB”) that his electric connection had been discontinued on 24.6.2008 and the concerned Junior Engineer, namely, petitioner had asked for illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- 3. A trap was laid in which consumer Sh. Hanumana Ram offered a sum of Rs.2,000/- to one Sh. Mokh Ram s/o Sh. Banwari Lal, a private contractor along with the bill for depositing the same with the cashier. Since the cashier had closed the cash-book, the said amount along with bill was handed over to Sh. Moola Ram for depositing the same on the next working day. The trap party found the amount of Rs.2000/- from Sh. Moola Ram and on that count, an F.I,.R. was registered and sent to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, on the basis of which the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur registered case No. 157/2008 against the petitioner, Shri Moola Ram(Helper-I) as well as Mokh Ram on 5.7.2008. Subsequent to the F.I.R., a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. The Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur through its communication dated 17.10.2008 forwarded the entire record to respondent no. 3 for issuing sanction order. Respondent no.3, namely, the Chief Engineer examined the record and also consulted the Investigating Officer and it emerged that on 24.6.2008 during investigation, the Vigilance Party of JVVNL found theft of electricity in the domestic connection of Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi and the same was disconnected immediately. For the purpose of re-connection of electric connection, consumer Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi was required to deposit the compounding money to the tune of Rs.2000/-. In view of the material available on record, the competent authority came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show or suggest the demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner or Sh. Moola Ram and clearly refused to grant sanction for sanction. In view of the material available on record, the competent authority came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show or suggest the demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner or Sh. Moola Ram and clearly refused to grant sanction for sanction. The same was communicated to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB), Jodhpur on 12.1.2009. The Managing Director, JVVNL also examined the record and by a communication dated 30.10.2009, requested the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy, Jaipur to approve the decision taken for not granting sanction of prosecution against the petitioner. However, respondent no. 5 directed the Managing Director of JVVNL to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as well as Sh. Moola Ram. On the basis of communication dated 24.12.2009, the Managing Directed on 4.1.2010 directed the Chief Engineer to issue sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. On the basis of the dictates of the higher authorities, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted on 13.1.2010. Aggrieved against the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that this sanction order is not sustainable on account of the fact that the competent authority having duly applied its mind, came to the conclusion that no case for demand of illegal gratification had been made against the petitioner and as such, the order directing the respondent to issue sanction for prosecution amounts to usurping the powers of the competent authority. It is contended that respondent no.2-the Managing Director himself examined the record and concurred with the opinion of the Chief Engineer-the competent authority to issue sanction order. It is contended that once the competent authority, the Chief Engineer in the present case, had refused to accord sanction to prosecute, there was no occasion for any interference in the same wi9thout there being any fresh evidence or cogent reasons to do so. 5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen, 2011(1) Crimes 47, to contend that the order granting or refusing sanction must be preceded by application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority. 6. 5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen, 2011(1) Crimes 47, to contend that the order granting or refusing sanction must be preceded by application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority. 6. Per contra, it is argued by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the question of sanction under Section 197 should be left open to be decided in the judgment which would be delivered on the conclusion of the trial. It would always be open to the petitioner to challenge the order of sanction before the trial court itself. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner, in the present case, was placed under suspension on account of charge of receiving illegal gratification for a sum of Rs.2, 000/- while working with respondent-JVVNL. The Chief Engineer, being the competent authority, looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that no grounds have been made out for permitting the Anti-Corruption Department to prosecute the petitioner. After looking into the record, the Chief Engineer came to the conclusion that the electricity had been cut by the Vigilance Department on account of theft of electricity by the consumer Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi. The Managing Director looked at the record and concurred with the decision taken by the competent authority, not to prosecute the petitioner. However order dated 24.12.2009 issued by respondent no. 5, directed that sanction to prosecute under Sections 7,13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code should be issued. On the basis of the said communication received from respondent no.2-the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy, Jaipur ,which ordered for issuance of order to prosecute, the impugned orders dated 4.1.2010 and 13.1.2010 came to be passed by which sanction was granted to prosecute. 9. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 reads as under:- “19. On the basis of the said communication received from respondent no.2-the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy, Jaipur ,which ordered for issuance of order to prosecute, the impugned orders dated 4.1.2010 and 13.1.2010 came to be passed by which sanction was granted to prosecute. 9. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 reads as under:- “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 save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013(1 ot 2014)- (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; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,(2 of 1974)- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.” 10. Section 19 has been enacted in order to grant a protection to a public servant to the extent that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 of the Act of 1988 without previous sanction given by the competent authority to remove him from office. The object under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on account of false and frivolous complaints made against him. The object under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on account of false and frivolous complaints made against him. In Mansukhdas Vithal Das Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, 1997(7) SCC 622 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that “Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty.” The competent authority in the present case, looked at the evidence on record and came to a definite conclusion that there was no need to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The Managing Director also concurred with the decision as taken by the competent authority . A perusal of the record does not reveal the subjective satisfaction of the Secretary or any reasoning recorded as to why the order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner should be altered. It is incumbent upon an authority who seeks to change or alter any decision taken to give adequate and cogent reasons to differ with such decision. The failure of the Secretary to record reasons or independently apply his mind vitiates the order passed. 11. The competent authority, being the Chief Engineer, had held a detailed enquiry by associating Vigilance Department as well and came to the conclusion that there was no need to grant sanction to prosecute. The Managing Director too concurred but the Secretary passed the order that sanction to prosecute should be granted without specifying or giving reasons for over-turning the decision of the competent authority. Therefore, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen (supra), wherein it has been held that order granting or refusing to grant sanction must be exercised only after due application of mind, has not been adhered to in the present case it is held that there is no independent application of mind nor are there any cogent reasons as to why prosecution should be sanctioned. Even the orders dated 4.1.2010 issued by Managing Director and 13.1.2010 issued by the Chief Engineer granting sanction for prosecution, make no mention as to why there is a total turn around from the earlier decision taken not to prosecute. Thus the orders passed are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. 12. Even the orders dated 4.1.2010 issued by Managing Director and 13.1.2010 issued by the Chief Engineer granting sanction for prosecution, make no mention as to why there is a total turn around from the earlier decision taken not to prosecute. Thus the orders passed are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. 12. The argument as raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order granting sanction to prosecute before the trial court can not be sustained , in view of the fact if the very sanction order is not maintainable , the trial itself will be redundant . 13. In view of the above, the above noted writ petition stands allowed and the orders dated 24.12.2009, 4.1.2010 and 13.1.2010 are hereby quashed and set aside.