- (1.) BY means of this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed with respect to quashing of Government Order dated 19.08.2010 bearing No. 4041/23 -6 -10 -15(6)EM/09 -TC -2, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the petition. It comes out that Principal Secretary -opposite party No. 1 has accorded sanction to prosecute the Petitioner with respect to the case registered vide Case Crime No. 104 of 2005, under Sections 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) WE had heard Shri (Dr.) L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that while granting sanction against the Petitioner the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and there is no sufficient material on record. The Petitioner has already retired and grant of sanction at this juncture is too harsh. The impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate argued that sanction order (impugned order) has been passed by the opposite party No. 1 under the garb and powers vested in him to grant sanction under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He placed two judgments of the apex Court rendered in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 193 as well as in the case of Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan : (2001) 8 SCC 607. In the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Anr. (supra), he placed reliance upon paragraphs -47 and 48, which are being reproduced herein below: 47. The sanctioning authority is not required to separately specify each of the offences against the accused public servant. This is required to be done at the stage of framing of charge. Law requires that before the sanctioning authority materials must be placed so that the sanctioning authority can apply his mind and take a decision. Whether there is an application of mind or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any generalized guidelines in that regard. 48. The sanction in the instant case related to the offences relatable to the Act. There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non -application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during trial.;