- (1.) WHILE working as Foreman-I in the Department of Mines and Geology, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Anti Corruption Bureau Outpost, Jodhpur, Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 05.08.2010 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. As a consequent to lodging of the case aforesaid, the petitioner was placed under suspension under an order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Director, Mines and Geology. Under a letter dated 26.09.2010, the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur, received a draft sanction letter from the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for according sanction as required for prosecution of a Government servant according to Section 19 of the Act of 1988. The Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur, vide a communication dated 18.09.2012 conveyed the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur regarding grant of sanction in the terms of the draft sent by the Bureau. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) THE only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 19 of the Act of 1988, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind while considering the issue for grant of sanction for prosecution of a Government servant, but in the instant matter, a draft for granting sanction was sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the Director, Mines and Geology and the Director, Mines and Geology without independent application of mind just put his signatures on the draft and granted sanction and such sanction is against the spirit of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1988. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9599/2009] decided on 13.12.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents, looking to the fact that the issue involved in this petition for writ is akin to the issue adjudicated in the case of Ganga Ram (supra), consented to argue the writ petition without filing reply to the same.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.;