P.K.LOHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ. - (1.) BY the instant intra -Court appeal, the appel - lant/petitioner has called in question the impugned judg - ment and order dated 2nd of August 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing his writ petition for twin reliefs, viz., against the order of suspension, and order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 13(1) (d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC.
(2.) STATED in succinct, the facts of the case are that appellant while working as Junior Accountant with SBK Government College, Jaisalmer, was sent on depu - tation by the District Collector, Jaisalmer vide order dat - ed 21st of July 2003 to the Tehsil Office, Fatehgarh, Dis - trict Jaisalmer. The aforesaid arrangement was made by the District Collector, Jaisalmer for facilitating smooth and streamline drought relief work at Fatehgarh. Pur - suant to the order of deputation, the appellant assumed his duties at Tehsil Office, Fatehgarh on 23rd of July 2003 and continued to serve in the said capacity in that office up to 23rd of April 2004. It appears that before appellant' - s joining at the Tehsil Office, some scam was unearthed in the office involving serious financial irregularities at the behest of Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, Tehsildar Fatehgarh and LDC cum Cashier of the office. Taking serious note of the lapses and the allegations of misap - propriation, FIR dated 7th of June 2005 was registered against the erring officials under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Sec - tions 409, 467, 468, 471 & 120 -B IPC. In the FIR, it was clarified that the offence has occurred in the inter - vening period of 2002 -2003 and 2003 -2004. The posi - tive assertion of the appellant has been that his name was not figured in the First Information Report and as such he was not involved in the act of defalcation. Pleading his innocence, the appellant has averred in the writ petition that despite no role of the appellant in the entire episode, the competent authority has granted sanction for prosecution against him by order dated 1st of July 2010 (Annex.6 with the writ petition), therefore, the appellant has questioned the said order on the anvil that the same has been granted dehors the provisions of law and without examining the factual aspect in an abso - lutely mechanical manner. Apart from questioning the grant of sanction for prosecution, the appellant has also assailed before the learned Single Judge the order of suspension dated 2nd of July 2010 (Annex.8 with the writ petition). For challenging both the orders, the appellant has precisely harped on the fact that his deputation with Tehsil Office, Fatehgarh was for a short duration and during that period there was no financial irregularity warranting impugned actions against him. The writ petition was contested by the re - spondents and reply to the petition was submitted on behalf of the third respondent. In the return, the third respondent has taken the stand that the embezzlement, which was bone of contention for the grant of sanction for prosecution also relates to the period of 2003 -2004 during which the appellant was working on deputation as Junior Accountant and some of the payments which were made during that period were forwarded by the appel - lant for adjustment, and therefore, the embezzlement of a sum of Rs.1,56,289/ - has occasioned due to con - nivance of the appellant, which prima facie indicates his involvement in the entire dubious dealings. With these submissions, the respondent has stoutly defended its ac - tion in granting sanction for prosecution so also issuance of the suspension order.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing the rival submissions and examining the matter threadbare, found that prima facie evidence was available against the appellant for grant of sanction for prosecution. The learned Single Judge has also overruled the contention of the appellant for affording him an opportunity of being heard before issuance of sanction for prosecution. Deal - ing with the contention of the appellant against the order of suspension, the learned Single Judge has concluded in the impugned judgment and order that there is no infir - mity much less legal infirmity in the said order.;