ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises dual relief of quashment of charge-sheet dated 30.3.2022 (Annexure P/1) filed u/S 173 of Cr.P.C against petitioner alleging offences punishable u/Ss vide Crime No.30/19 and the order of grant of sanction dated 4.3.2022 (Annexure P/2). 2. L earned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Bramhanand Pandey does not press the challenge to the charge-sheet and restricts his submissions qua the order of grant of sanction for prosecution vide Annexure P/2 issued by the State Government. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of grant of sanction dated 4.3.2022 (Annexure P/2) is vitiated in law as it has been granted by incompetent authority. It is submitted that grant of sanction for prosecution is by the State Government whereas the competent authority to remove the petitioner who is holding the post of Patwari is the S.D.O./Collector and not the State Government. 4.1 After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the question of admission, this Court is not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to incompetence of the authority granting sanction for prosecution. 4.2 The protection available to a public servant u/S 19 of the Act is that no authority subordinate to one who is competent to remove the government servant from the office can grant sanction. Thus, the prohibition is against any authority subordinate to the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. The corollary to the above is that there is no prohibition to a superior authority than the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. 5. The view of this Court is bolstered by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 70 , State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 and Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1982) 3 SCC 200 ], the relevant extract of which are reproduced hereinbelow : “6. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the apex Court drawing analogy from the scheme of Article 311(1) of Constitution held that so long as the authority granting government servant concerned, no fault can be found in the order of grant of sanction solely on the ground of incompetence of sanctioning authority. 7. In view of the above exposition of law on the point, this Court need not enter into prolixity of dwelling upon the contentions of petitioner in detail. 8. Consequently, since the order of grant of sanction herein is issued by an authority (State Government) superior to the competent sanctioning authority (Sub-Divisional Officer), the same cannot be held to be bad in the eyes of law. 9. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.” 6. This Court in one of its recent decisions rendered on 10th March, 2022 in the case of Ankit Pathak v. State of M.P. [2022 SCC OnLine MP 440], has taken similar view. 7. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.