TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, State of Punjab has challenged in terms of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P-28) and 17.11.2006 (Annexure P-32), whereby, respondent No.2 has granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE first submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while impugning the orders granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is that in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Investigating Agency is required to take sanction from the Competent Authority before prosecuting any government employee and in the case in hand, respondent No.2 has not applied its mind independently prior to grant of sanction and as such, the impugned orders granting sanction can not be sustained. Towards advancing such submission, learned counsel would refer to the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency (Annexure P-27) and would submit that the language contained in the impugned orders granting sanction is verbatim the same as employed in the draft. Accordingly, counsel would submit that respondent No.2 while granting sanction has only completed a formality and has signed the dotted line and there has been no independent application of mind as regards the material produced by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned sanction order would reveal that the Sanctioning Authority has adverted to all the necessary facts. It is upon examination of such material facts which were in the nature of documents attached alongwith the challan form pertaining to the case FIR as also perusing the statements of witnesses that the Sanctioning Authority had certified as regards its satisfaction that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offences concerned. The Sanctioning Authority has also certified that it is the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office. It would be useful to refer to the relevant extracts from the impugned order granting sanction and the same reads in the following terms: "With the challan form of this case FIR the document attached thereto and on perusing the statements of witnesses minutely and deeply, I am fully satisfied that Panchayat Secretary Devinder Singh Block Machhiwara District Ludhiana during the tenure of his posting at such, in Gram Panchayat Manewal by conniving with the DDPO Bhajan Singh, BDPO Baljit Singh, Panchayat Contract Amandeep Singh, Pargat Singh, Madan Singh and Gurnam Singh, and with the 9 Contractors of Gurnam Singh minerals, out of the panchayat lands measuring 381 kanals 4 marlas by joining hands with his companions above mentioned accused by getting removed/lifted sand from the Panchayat lands worth Rs.3 crore with a bad intention, while performing his government duties and committing negligence therein intentionally and deliberately, by conniving with the co-accused have committed corruption at a very higher level and after causing financial loss to the Government (gram Panchayat Manewal) have committed embezzlement and corruption and have prepared forged document. In this way Shri Devinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Machhiwara, at the very first sight, committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13 C (d) read with Section 13 (2) 88 of the P.C. Act." "The challan file of this FIR, the documents attached with it and the statements of the witnesses have been minutely perused and thereafter, jI am fully satisfied that Gram Panchayat, Manewal and Devinder Singh after conniving with each other, have committed an embezzlement/corruption, out of the Government grants received for the village Manewal nad out of the other funds, to the tune of Rs.2,53,215.00. In this manner, at the very first sight, they have committed offences under Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13 (1) C.D. read with Section 13(2) 88 of the P.C. Act."
(3.) FROM the impugned sanction orders, it would not be possible to conclude that the Competent Authority has not applied its mind prior to granting sanction. Merely because language of the impugned orders as also the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction were couched in identical terms can not made the basis of setting aside an order granting sanction.;