M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 03rd November, 2014 granting sanction for prosecution so as the order of suspension dated 05th November, 2014.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that after registration of case for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988'), the investigation was conducted. The prosecution asked for sanction for prosecution. It was denied by the competent authority vide its order dated 18th June, 2014. After the aforesaid order, now the order has been passed to grant sanction for prosecution. The subsequent order is nothing but review of the first order without any change in the material. Whatever material was considered while passing the first order, was again considered while passing the impugned order. The aforesaid is not permissible in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of HP v. Nishant Sareen reported in : AIR 2011 SC 404. Accordingly, the impugned order may be set aside so as the order of suspension. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
(3.) IT is a case where in a trap organized by the Anti Corruption Bureau, a sum of Rs. 1,12,500/ - was found in the pocket of the petitioner. When he was asked about the sources, it could not disclosed. The FIR was accordingly registered for offence under Sections 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. After the investigation, charge sheet was proposed and accordingly, department was asked to give sanction for prosecution.;