GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15.4.2004, a surprise check was made by Anti Corruption Bureau at Check post, Bharudi Khanpur where the petitioner was posted at Nakedar. At the time of checking, the petitioner was not found at the check post, however, the receipt book issued to him was found with a private person, accordingly, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jalore on receiving the information about absence of the petitioner on check post placed him under suspension under an order dated 26.7.2004. The suspension aforesaid came to be revoked vide order dated 2 29.11.2005. The petitioner was also subjected to an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) under a memorandum dated 23.3.2006. The enquiry officer after holding the regular enquiry held the petitioner guilty for negligence in handing-over the Government receipts to an unauthorised person. No decision is yet taken by the disciplinary authority regarding imposition of penalty on basis of the findings given by the enquiry officer. However, for the same incident, an FIR was also lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the authority competent i.e. the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur on 31.7.2009 has granted sanction as per provision of Sec. 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter) to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) and Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. An order of suspension is also passed on 10.8.2009 by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur after granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the suspension order dated 10.8.2009 and the order dated 31.7.2009, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 3 at the first instance, a draft prosecution sanction was received by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur from the Anti Corruption Bureau and the Director, without application of his mind, just by putting his name at the blank space shown in second last para of the draft prosecution sanction, granted the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It is asserted that as a matter of fact, the entire process of granting sanction was made in mechanical manner and the non-application of mind while doing so is apparent.

(3.) While placing reliance upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (reported in 2008(1) SCC (Cr.) Page. 130), it is asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.