- (1.) INSTANT intra -court appeal (SAW -285/2013) has been filed by five appellants assailing sanction for prosecution granted by the appointing authority, which came to be affirmed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing their writ petition under order impugned dt. 20.12.2012.
(2.) AGAINST all the five appellants, FIR for offence u/Ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act & Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 & 120 -B IPC was registered and obviously after investigation was conducted, at the stage of filing charge -sheet, the Investigating Officer submitted application to the appointing authority for grant of prosecution sanction and that initially came to be granted vide order dt. 13.01.2009 and followed vide order dt. 15.02.2012. It has been informed to this Court that earlier sanction for prosecution was granted in respect of the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and by subsequent order the sanction for prosecution was granted in reference to the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and on account of sanction for prosecution being granted, for filing charge -sheet against the appellants decision was taken by the authority for placing them under suspension vide order dt. 12.10.2012 on account of criminal case being registered against them by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur. However, before we may examine the dispute which the appellants have raised in the instant proceedings we would like to refer the narration of the cases after cases being filed in this Court either in respect of order of suspension or prosecution sanction at different point of time. The appellant Kailash Chand Sharma filed a writ petition bearing no. 19750/2012 on 23.11.2012 against order of suspension dt. 12.10.2012 but that came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dt. 14.12.2012 with direction to make representation and at the same time the second appellant Jeevan Singh also filed a separate writ petition bearing no. 19299/2012 on 23.11.2012 assailing order of suspension passed in his case dt. 12.10.2012 and that a so came to be disposed of granting liberty of making representation vide order dt. 13.12.2012. As regards the representation which the appellants submitted against the order of suspension impugned before the learned Single Judge, that also came to be rejected by the competent authority on 22.01.2013 and that was assailed by the appellants by filing writ petition bearing No. 6537/2013 (tagged herewith), at the same time a separate writ petition was filed assailing order granting sanction for prosecution which came to be registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20693/2012 and that was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under order impugned dt. 20.12.2012 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant intra -court appeal.
(3.) ON the last date of hearing when the matter came up before the Court, we put a question to the counsel as to why the petitions after petitions are being filed against order of granting sanction for prosecution in reference to the FIR registered against the appellants under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and that was very specifically indicated by the authority while placing under suspension in the order itself and the matter was posted for today only to seek explanation from the counsel in filing of the writ petitions in serious.;