Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annex. 7) dated 4.6.2012, whereby sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; the order (Annex. 8) dated 4.6.2012, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension; for restraining the respondents from taking any departmental action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to assume charge as the Managing Director of the Bikaner Dairy.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of the Jaipur Zila Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Jaipur Dairy') in the year 2008. An FIR came to be registered at the Police Station ACB Jaipur on 30.1.2009 against the petitioner and some other officers/employees of the Jaipur Dairy and one Rajendra Gathala being the proprietor of a firm M/s. Choudhary Printers, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, wholesale irregularities and bunglings were committed in the process of inviting tenders for erecting advisement hoardings of the society in the urban and rural areas of Jaipur district. The tender was granted illegally to Shri Rajendra Gathala, being the proprietor of the firm M/s. Choudhary Printers. Investigation was conducted and finding the offences proved, the investigating officer moved the petitioner's disciplinary authority for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the RCDF (Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation) gave a notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner as well as the Investigating Officer were heard. The Managing Director after examining the entire record formulated an opinion that no mens rea was reflected in the petitioner's action and that no loss was caused to the society by any of the petitioner's directions in the tender process. The bills raised by M/s. Choudhary Printers for preparing the advertisement hoardings were not paid and honoured and thus, no financial loss was caused to the society. He concluded that the investigating agency was unable to satisfy that the petitioner, by his direction and actions in the tender process caused any loss to the cooperative society, and therefore, it was not a fit case to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner in the case. The said opinion was forwarded to the Principal Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department of the Government of Rajasthan by a letter dated 13.10.2010, which is annexed as Annex. 6 with the instant writ petition. The request of the prosecuting agency to prosecute the petitioner was thus categorically turned down by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) HOWEVER , it appears that after the lapse of some time, the investigating agency again approached the Managing Director by a letter dated 7.5.2012 requesting that sanction be accorded to prosecute the petitioner in the matter. The Managing Director reviewed the matter and formulated an order (Annex. 7) dated 4.6.2012, concluding that the process of granting tenders for erecting the advertisement hoardings to the firm M/s. Choudhary Printers was illegal and was tainted with fraud and conspiracy. Accordingly, the Managing Director approved sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC by order dated 4.6.2012. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the very same day by order (Annex. 8). Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition.;