SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) THE legal issue canvassed by the petitioner, a former employee of the Uco Bank, is that the sanction granted by the chairman and managing director of the bank to prosecute the petitioner is illegal as there was a previous rejection of the sanction and the subsequent sanction has been obtained without any additional material being produced. The principle is beyond question that it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review its decision of refusal to grant sanction or reconsider the matter on the same material. The question that arises is as to whether the principle would be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
(2.) FOR the purpose of the present proceedings, the petitioner refers to a letter dated April 23, 2008 issued by the chief vigilance officer of the bank to the Central Bureau of Investigation; the note of April 16, 2008 appended to such letter; a memorandum issued by the general manager and deputy general manager of personnel services dated November 12, 2007 with the notings thereon; the sanction order of May 26, 2008 issued by the chairman and managing director; and, an unsigned sanction order dated May 31, 2007. According to the petitioner, the memorandum to the board of directors issued by the personnel services department of the bank referred to the transaction in question and concluded that the petitioner "did not play any role in obtaining security for 95 lakhs." The memorandum recorded that there were reports by two successive managers of the Kakurgachi branch of the bank that the initial disbursal in the account of the relevant constituent "was made under the directions of some other Bank functionary and not by (the petitioner)." It also referred to a recovery of Rs.80.76 lakh in the relevant account upon enforcement of securities. The memorandum concluded that "it appears that it is not a case of fraud" but a case of "irregular lending and injudicious use of discretion."
(3.) ON the basis of the recommendation in the memorandum of November 12, 2007 that the matter "can be handled through Regular Departmental Action and hence, permission to CBI for prosecution of (the petitioner) need not be given", a note was prepared on April 16, 2008. The chief vigilance officer's letter of April 23, 2008 to CBI appended the note of April 16, 2008 thereto and claimed that such note "has the approval of the CMD ..." The note does not appear to bear the signature of the CMD nor does the petitioner attribute the initials at the foot of the note to be that of the CMD. The initials on each page of the note are on a stamp of the vigilance department of the bank.;