- (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 25.6.1990 (Annexure P -11) by which respondent No.2 has granted permission for prosecution of the petitioner in FIR No.398 dated 26.12.1985 registered under Section 5(2) 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short 'the Act'] and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case pleaded by the petitioner is that he was working as S.D.O (D/S), Sub Division, Rupana since 4.10.1985. He was on casual leave on 23.12.1985 and 24.12.1985 and station leave from 23.12.1985 to 25.12.1985. He has been involved in a false case by one Massa Singh son of Bhag Singh under Section 5(2) 47 of the Act when he came to know about the registration of false case, he made a representation to respondent No.2 on 2.1.1986 to hold a departmental enquiry before taking any action or granting permission for prosecution. When he did not get any reply, he sent a reminder on 8.7.1986. He was also provisionally promoted and regularized by the department on 3.5.1988 and with the promotion his appointing and punishing authority has changed because while working as SDEO his appointing and punishing authority was Administrative Member but after his promotion his appointing and punishing authority became Chairman of the Board. The department, after taking into consideration the FIR as well as representation of the petitioner, found that he was falsely implicated. The report from the field staff and from the DIG/D&S, PSEB Patiala was also taken and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the competent authority concluded that it was not a fit case for granting sanction for prosecution and in that regard a letter was written by the Deputy Secretary (Service -II) to the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab on 28.6.1988. The petitioner remained under suspension from 26.12.1985 to 31.12.1985 as he was arrested by the Police in the said case. He was reinstated w.e.f. 1.1.1986 after which he sent a representation to the respondents on 3.8.1988 for regularizing the period of suspension and sanction of increments. In response to the representation, he received a letter dated 17.11.1988 that decision regarding regularization of suspension period would be taken by the department after receipt of decision from the Punjab Government. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the year 1989, the matter was again taken up by the Punjab Government with the PSEB. Although the competent authority had no power to review the decision but still it was re -considered and the Administrative Member came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for prosecution and the decision taken by the predecessor was just and fair. A letter in that regard was sent to the Government on 5.7.1989. The Government was not satisfied and the Administrative Member was summoned by the Financial Commissioner on 12.6.1990 vide letter dated 5.6.1990 and on the basis thereof, the 3rd review order was passed on 25.6.1990 granting sanction of prosecution of the petitioner which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) THE written statement has been filed by respondent No.3 in which it is alleged that the Administrative Member has passed the order of sanction of prosecution of the petitioner because true facts were not brought to his knowledge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is no vested power of review with the respondents as the review could only be ordered if there is an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the facts but still if it is presumed though not admitted, the power of review is there, it could be exercised only if there is some additional material before the reviewing authority and not on the earlier material on the basis of which the sanction was not granted. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen", 2010 14 SCC 527, decisions of this Court in the cases of "Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 305, "Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti Vs. State of Punjab", 2006 2 RCR(Cri) 430, "Dr. Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2001 2 RCR(Cri) 58, "Harmesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab", 1999 2 RCR(Cri) 351 and "Harlochan Singh Vs. State of Punjab", 2010 2 RCR(Cri) 358. On the point of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat", 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 236.;