JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta. 2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the letter dated 06.07.2023 contained in Annexure-20, which has been served upon the petitioner by letter dated 31.07.2023, by which, the petitioner has been informed that the State Government has granted sanction for institution of the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner on the issue of earning disproportionate assets during his serve in the capacity of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), West Forest Division, Hazaribag. Prayer is also made for restraining the respondents for institution of any preliminary enquiry against the petitioner, since the same is not in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was superannuated on 28.02.2021 and during his working as an IFS officer on the post of Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Coordinator, World Food Programme, Jharkhand, Ranchi. He submits that the petitioner has unblemished service record during his working for 33 years in different capacities under the State Government. He further submits that the petitioner has received a letter dated 30.03.2021 from the Under Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, in which, the inquiry report of DSP (ACB) dated 07.07.2020 was enclosed, of which, the petitioner submitted his reply on the findings given in the inquiry report. He submits that the petitioner has submitted his detailed reply dated 17.05.2021 to the Under Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand. He then submits that the allegations are levelled against the petitioner is that he is having the disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 14,80,905/-. He submits that on an anonymous complaint by a person, the learned Lokayukta has directed the ACB to make an inquiry. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court of page-143 of the writ petition, which is the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and submits that no inquiry investigation can be carried out on any anonymous complaint / petition and this fact was also stated by the petitioner in the reply to the department and in spite of having categorical prohibition for initiation of such inquiry on the basis of any anonymous letter, the said case is registered. He submits that by memorandum dated 18.10.2013 and 18.06.2014, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of India has been communicated to all the Secretaries of the State Government and the State of Jharkhand has also been circulated the aforesaid memorandum to all its Secretaries. He further submits that in absence of any proper approval of the Departmental Minister, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act amended in 2018, all action has been taken. He submits that false allegations are also made in the inquiry report that the petitioner has second wife, which is not correct, as the petitioner is having only one wife and has one unmarried daughter, which is revealed from the pension paper, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He further submits that the allegations are there with regard to flat and it is stated that the said flat was purchased to the tune of Rs. 22,60,700/-, which is incorrect, however, the same was purchased in the year 2011 at the cost of Rs. 14,00,000/-, which is evident from the sale deed (at pages 9 and 12), which is contained in Annexure-5. He submits that the allegations are made of purchasing two vehicles, however, the said two vehicles were purchased by way taking loan from the bank, for that EMIs have been paid. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only on a complaint of a person, earlier the sanction was sought from the department and by way of Annexure-17, the said sanction was refused. He submits that in absence of any new material and only on the direction of the Lokayukta, the inquiry report is submitted. He further submits that once any cognizable offence is made out, there is no question of preliminary inquiry, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and particularly he refers to para-120.5, which is as under:- “120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.” 6. He further submits that in absence of any new material, the second sanction is restricted and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. He further submits that in absence of any new material, the second sanction is restricted and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen , (2010) 14 SCC 527 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-12 and 13 has held as follows:- “12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. 13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for any sanction, application of mind is required and the State Government cannot review any order in absence of any new material. He relied in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for any sanction, application of mind is required and the State Government cannot review any order in absence of any new material. He relied in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti , (2009) 17 SCC 92 , where in paras-6, 7 and 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “6. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the concerned authority is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant sanction may attract judicial review by the Superior Courts. 7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidences must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidences collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidences may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. [See Mansukhlal vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 3 SCC 622] The concerned authority cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [See State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. v. Dr. R.C. Anand and Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 615 ]. 9. [See Mansukhlal vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 3 SCC 622] The concerned authority cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [See State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. v. Dr. R.C. Anand and Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 615 ]. 9. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court, opined: "Once the Government passes the order under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the concerned official, reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already stood considered, would not be appropriate or permissible. The Government is expected to act consciously and cautiously while taking such serious decisions. The perusal of the record shows that pointed queries had been raised to be answered by the Vigilance Bureau but no answer was forthcoming nor any had been submitted subsequently which culminated into passing of the later order dated September 30, 2004. We refrain ourselves from mentioning the queries which had been raised but it would suffice to say that the queries were never answered at the relevant time when the order dated December 15, 2003 had been passed nor the same was ever commented upon as no answers were placed before the competent authority for passing the impugned order dated September 30, 2004." 8. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that on the basis of request of learned Lokayukta, the inquiry report is unwarranted. 9. Learned counsel further submits that even in the complaint, nothing is disclosed as on the what basis, the complaint is made and even the period is not disclosed. He submits that if such a situation is there, even the learned Lokayukta is restricted to pass such orders, in light of Section 8(4)(a)(b) of The Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. 10. On the above grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings are vitiated, as such, the same may kindly be quashed. 11. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the respondents-State submits that there is no challenge of the order of learned Lokayukta in the writ petition. 10. On the above grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings are vitiated, as such, the same may kindly be quashed. 11. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the respondents-State submits that there is no challenge of the order of learned Lokayukta in the writ petition. By way of drawing the attention of the court to Annexure-18 of the writ petition, he submits that only on the ground of an anonymous complaint, it is opined that on the basis of CVC manual, on the basis of anonymous complaint from the Hon’ble Chief Minister can be obtained. He submits that by the said order, sanction is not there and only a request is made. He further submits that the learned Lokayukta has requested not to disclose the name and identification of the complainant and in view of that the complainant’s name has not been disclosed. He submits that the said fact has been disclosed in para-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit. He further submits that the State has limited role, as it has proceeded on the request of learned Lokayukta. He relied in the case of Office of the Odisha Lokayukta Vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi & Ors. , in SLP (Civil) Nos. 6261-6162 of 2021, wherein the High Court order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the learned Lokayukta was not heard. He relied at para-30 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “30. At the same time, under Section 28, for the purpose of conducting any preliminary inquiry or investigation, it is open for the Lokayukta to utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government and, in the circumstances, if the appellant in its judicious discretion and on the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct a preliminary inquiry through an agency of the Government of which reference has been made under Section 28 through the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack, there appears no legal infirmity being committed by the appellant in the decision making process in conducting a preliminary inquiry which, in our view, was within the scope and ambit of Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 and a manifest error was committed by the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside the order of the appellant dated 11 th December, 2020 to conduct an inquiry against respondent No.1.” 12. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Odisha High Court. 13. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the learned Lokayukta has submitted that it was anonymous in view of that fact the request was made to the learned Lokayukta by the complainant that his identity must not be disclosed, as there is threat to his life, however, his name is there in the complaint. He submits that in view of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, learned Lokayukta has passed the said order, as per Section 10(3) of the said Act. He submits that the said aspect has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rang Nath Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ., (2015) 8 SCC 117 . 14. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that one complaint was received by the learned Lokayukta contained in Annexure-10 and pursuant to that the petitioner was called upon to file reply before the State and the petitioner has filed reply on 17.05.2021 denying all the allegations including stating that on an anonymous complaint, the inquiry cannot be made that too in absence of any affidavit. It is pointed out that for the same allegation, the sanction was not granted and the matter was closed and the reopening of the same is a malicious proceeding. Annexure-17 of the writ petition is a document, which clearly suggests that earlier the Chief Minister, who was the departmental minister also has refused to grant sanction with regard to complaint on 22.09.2022 itself. Further at page-129 of the writ petition is a document, which has been received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, in which, it is clearly disclosed that there is no need of taking sanction in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Based on that at page-133 of the writ petition, no sanction was granted. 15. Based on that at page-133 of the writ petition, no sanction was granted. 15. In light of the above facts, it is crystal clear that for the issue in question, earlier the department has already closed the entire proceeding contained in Annexure-19 and clear cut finding is there at column-14 dated 17.11.2018 that this petitioner has taken all pain for recovery of the forest land acquired by a particular company and it was further stated that the allegation is not proved against the petitioner. In para-36 of the writ petition, there is statement that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally with regard to the allegation of sale of forest land and after making high level forest departmental inquiry, the same was dropped and that fact has not been disputed either by the State or by the office of the learned Lokayukta in their respective counter affidavits. 16. It is further an admitted position that on an anonymous complaint and in absence of any affidavit, the learned Lokayukta has directed to make an inquiry. In light of Section (2) of Section 9 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, the complaint is required to be accompanied by such affidavit. For ready reference Sub-Section (2) of Section (9) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. Provision relating to complaints. (1) …….. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by such affidavits as may be prescribed.” 17. Looking into the above, it is crystal clear that in absence of any affidavit, if any complaint is filed, that is not required to be entertained by the learned Lokayukta. 18. Further in the complaint, the period is not prescribed, for which time, such allegations are made and if that is a situation, Sub- Section (4) of Section 8 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 is attracted, which is as under:- “8. Matters not subject to investigation:- (1)………. (4) The Lokayukta Shall not investigate any complaint:- (a) Involving a grievance, if the complaint is made after the expiry of twelve months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant; (b) Involving an allegation, if the complaint is made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place.” 19. Provided that the Lokayukta may entertain a complaint referred to in Clause (a) the complainant satisfies him that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in that clause. 20. In view of the provisions contained in Section 8(4)(a)(b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, the Lokayukta cannot be proceeded after expiry of 12 months with regard to the subject matter of Section 8(4)(a) and after five years with regard to Section 8(4)(b) of the said Act, which further strengthen the case of the petitioner and it is not disclosed that any action pursuant to that proviso, of that Section has been considered or not. Thus, if a statute is there, for such type of a complaint, the Statute is required to be followed by the office of the learned Lokayukta. 21. In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that there is no new material before the Government to proceed and if such a situation is there, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the two of the judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh (Supra) and State of Punjab (Supra). 22. Further the only allegation is made that disproportionate asset of Rs. 14,80,905/- was found, however, documents, available on record, clearly suggests that the petitioner has taken the flat in question after taking the loan from the bank to the tune of Rs. 14 lakhs that too in the year 2011 itself. Two vehicles, which are the subject matter of inquiry, which were also purchased by the petitioner after obtaining the loan from the bank, for that the petitioner is paying the EMIs and those facts are clear from page-48, which is the part of the Inquiry report itself, which further strengthen the case of the petitioner, that was forwarded to the petitioner by way of Annexure-1 dated 13.06.2023. 23. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. 23. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the learned Lokayukta in the case of Rang Nath Mishra (Supra) is concerned, that is not in dispute, the procedure prescribed in Section 10 is the Power of the Lokayukta, this court is nothing to do with it and the ratio of that judgment is not helping the Lokayukta, as this court is not questioning the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta with regard to the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, but the Statute is required to be followed. 24. The Case relied by Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of Office of the Odisha Lokayukta (Supra), the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to preliminary inquiry for any particular complaint, however, in that case, the limitation was not the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further interference by the Hon’ble Supreme court was there, as the Lokayukta was not heard in that case and it was allowed in the principle of natural justice and that case is not coming to help the State. 25. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the proceeding to continue, so far as the petitioner is concerned, as the case has already been closed by the Government, will amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the same was not initiated by following the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. 26. As such, the entire criminal proceeding including the letter dated 06.07.2023 contained in Annexure-20, which has been served upon the petitioner by letter dated 31.07.2023, are hereby, quashed. 27. This petition is allowed and disposed of.