ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O.Ms.No.6, dated: 26.04.2017, wherein sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as illegal ,arbitrary, discriminatory, unwarranted, contrary to the service law principles, and in clear violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash all the proceedings pursuant to the impugned G.O.Ms .No.6, Dt.26-04-2017 , and issue any other orders which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of Justice.” 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he joined as Assistant Statistical Officer in Andhra Pradesh Economic and Statistical Services on 28.02.1994 and worked at Penagaluru, railway Koduru and Obulavaripally Mandals of YSR Kadapa District till 15.06.2011. It is stated that a case was registered against him by the Joint Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad vide Crime No. 10/RCA-TCT/2011 on the allegation that the petitioner had acquired and possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thereafter the investigation officer had confirmed that the petitioner has acquired an inordinate assets by corrupt and illegal means which is a travesty of investigation. The 1st respondent merely basing on a gross misinformation and without narrating any substantial grounds, issued the impugned G.O.Ms .No.6, Dated 26.04.2017. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the statement of the petitioner blaming the department on source report and registering the crime against him is not correct because the “Source Report” is the lookafter of the ACB Department and also the entire exercise in registering the crime against the petitioner also done by the ACB department. However, this department has admitted that the post of ASO is non focal post with extensive nature of tour in discharging the duties attached to the post, but a conclusion cannot be drawn in his favour invariably. However, this department has admitted that the post of ASO is non focal post with extensive nature of tour in discharging the duties attached to the post, but a conclusion cannot be drawn in his favour invariably. Further with regard to the enquiry report, an assumption might be drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the worth of his assets grown by leaps and bounds because of land boom and rapid increase in the market prices in real estate, which cannot stand before the law, since the petitioner has failed to submit a clear cut accounts statement of his financial transactions rather than in a gross manner. It is also stated that as per the recommendations of the Director General, ACB and as well as Vigilance Commission the above G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 26.4.2017 was issued by the Government in Planning Department and as per the said G.O. the Planning Department have accorded permission to DG, ACB, A.P. to prosecute the petitioner. It is mainly stated that the petitioner has not made the DG, ACB, AP as the respondent though the lead role is from the ACB department. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the counter and contended that the ACB authorities failed to take into consideration the enquiry report and his detailed explanation with regard to acquisition of assets but recommended for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act unmindfully and in a casual manner. It is further stated that the Act of sanction is not an ideal formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act. It is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and it is a safe guard for the innocent public servant. The sanction authority shall exercise its discretion by applying its mind and not in a pedantic manner. It is an obligation for the Government to consider all the material at the time of grant of sanction and non-consideration would make the order of sanction redundant. It is submitted that in the instant case report of departmental enquiry was submitted on 22.6.2016 but without looking into the said report, the ACB submitted final report on 20.7.2016 and the Government issued order of sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 26.4.2017 without application of mind. It is submitted that in the instant case report of departmental enquiry was submitted on 22.6.2016 but without looking into the said report, the ACB submitted final report on 20.7.2016 and the Government issued order of sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 26.4.2017 without application of mind. It is submitted that the non-consideration of such a vital report would render the very order of sanction is illegal. The alleged misconduct would not attract prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, according sanction vide G.O.Ms.No.6 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Heard Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Bhanu Priaya. G, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-I and learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing submissions, this Court is observed that in similar circumstances this Court in a case of Ch. Ramarao Vs. State of A.P., 2016 (1) ALD Crl. 125, wherein it was held that “such non consideration and issuance of order of sanction cannot and for judicial scrutiny.” 7. As contended by the learned counsel that the order of sanction passed by the State Government is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and null and void and is a result of total non-application of mind. It is further contended that the impugned order is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. It is nextly argued that having called for the report from the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, the Government is not justified in not considering the report of Superintending Engineer. It is also argued that except relying upon the ACB report, the State Government did not independently consider the issue in the light of the material including the report of the Superintending Engineer. Placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and the judgment of this Court in Sri K.Srinivasulu V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (3) ALD 452 (DB) . 8. On analyzing the material available on record, this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that a mere allegation and accusation of corruption cripples the morale of the individual and undoubtedly undermines the reputation in the society. 8. On analyzing the material available on record, this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that a mere allegation and accusation of corruption cripples the morale of the individual and undoubtedly undermines the reputation in the society. The prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an extreme action which badly and severely affects and disturbs the social life of an individual. Unless the Government comes to a conclusion that there is a substantial material to launch prosecution, the permission for prosecution cannot be accorded in a routine, unreasonable and arbitrary manner. 9. In the instant case, except the report of the ACB, the State Government did not independently consider the issue nor considered any other material including the report of the Superintending Engineer. A perusal of the impugned order vividly shows that there is absolutely no application of mind at all. The grant of sanction is not a mere formality and there is a solemn and sacred duty cast upon the sanctioning authority to exercise this power with great care, caution and circumspection and it cannot be lost sight of that this discretionary power given to the State is a safeguard for innocent employees and is a sword in the hands of the sanctioning authorities to prevent frivolous complaints. The attempt of the respondents justifying the impugned action by way of filing counter cannot be permitted in view of the law laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 SCR (3) 272, wherein it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. The Apex Court further held that otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 10. In a case of this Court reported in Ch. Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 125, wherein, at paras 10 and 11, it was held that: “10. 10. In a case of this Court reported in Ch. Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 125, wherein, at paras 10 and 11, it was held that: “10. The prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 received the assent of the President on 09.09.1988 and was published in the Gazette of India on 10.09.1988. Chapter V of the said legislation deals with sanction for prosecution. The provision of law which is germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issue in the present writ petition is Section 19 of the Act, which reads as infra: 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 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; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. 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 (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, 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 inter-locutory order passed in 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 in stance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. 11. In the instant case, the State Government accorded sanction for prosecution by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 29-9-2007 under Section 19 of the Act. In the instant writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is neither sustainable nor tenable and the failure to consider the material available including the report of the Superintending Engineer is fatal. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that failure to assign reasons for according sanction for prosecution which is sine qui non for application of mind is fatal to the impugned order. These aspects are required to be evaluated and examined in the light of the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel. 11. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that failure to assign reasons for according sanction for prosecution which is sine qui non for application of mind is fatal to the impugned order. These aspects are required to be evaluated and examined in the light of the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel. 11. In a case of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union of India and others, (1997) 3 Surpeem Court Cases 261, wherein it was held that: “In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” 12. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, upon considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 26.04.2017. However, it is open for the respondents herein, if so advised, to pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made supra. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.