ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring that the selective method of initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.17 of 2014 against the petitioners pursuant to the defective and erroneous sanction of prosecution granted by the respondent in Memo No.2361/VC1(1)2011, dated 24.05.2014 so as to appease the 5th and 6th respondents including charge sheet in CC.No.17/2014 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, discriminatory and amounting to abuse of process of law and vitiated by delay and contrary to the provision of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act also Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and Government Circular Memo No.234/Cabiner/2015-1, dt.16.05.2016 and to pass such other order or further orders ……….” 2. Petitioners are questioning the sanction granted to prosecute the petitioners for the offence under Section 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The main ground on which the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings is that initially the competent authority has permitted departmental proceedings vide letter No.1165/VC-E2/2011-3, dated 12.06.2012, against these petitioners who are Accused Nos.1 and 3. However, subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.92, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC.1) Department, dated 23.05.2014 was issued granting sanction to the A.C.B to prosecute the petitioners before the Special Judge for the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the act of granting sanction subsequently is erroneous, improper and sanction is invalid. The competent authority after granting permission to proceed against the petitioners by way of a departmental enquiry, cannot again pass orders for prosecuting before the Special Judge without there being any additional material. The learned counsel argued that the Honourable Supreme Court washed proceedings under similar circumstances. However, no judgments are cited. 5. As seen from the record, the competent authority never said that no offence was made out, however, advised the Department to entrust the case to Departmental Enquiry against these petitioners. The relevant para reads as follows; “3. Commission further advises the department to entrust the case to departmental enquiry against A.O.1 i.e., Sri P.V.Lakshmi Suresh Kumar, Deputy Director (Admn.) and A.O.3 Sri G.Rajaiah, Senior Assistant (A-Section/MPHS (F) and advises the Department to take action accordingly.” 6. The relevant para reads as follows; “3. Commission further advises the department to entrust the case to departmental enquiry against A.O.1 i.e., Sri P.V.Lakshmi Suresh Kumar, Deputy Director (Admn.) and A.O.3 Sri G.Rajaiah, Senior Assistant (A-Section/MPHS (F) and advises the Department to take action accordingly.” 6. In the said circumstances, when the concerned authority found that there is a prima facie case and ordered for departmental enquiry and the subsequent orders granting sanction to prosecute them before the Special Court, will not in any manner amount to conflicting or contradictory decision regarding prosecution of these petitioners. 7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Deepak Khinchi v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (5) SCC 284 found fault with the competent authority denying sanction initially and again granting sanction on a subsequent date without there being any additional material. 8. A public servant alleged of committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or any other penal provisions depending on the decision taken by the competent authority, can be tried in a (i) departmental proceedings (ii) before the Tribunal or (iii) the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The initial decision taken to subject the petitioner to departmental enquiry and later to be tried by the Special Court will not in any manner violate any of the procedural provisions or the Rights of the petitioner in any manner. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Criminal Petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.