Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioner, a public servant being employee of the Education Department as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) has preferred this writ petition to challenge the impugned order dt. 14.08.2014 (Annex.8) whereby competent authority - the third respondent has issued sanction for his prosecution under Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') for offences under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that while working as UDC in the Office of District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Jalore, petitioner demanded illegal gratification from one Mohanlal son of Dhudaram Vishnoi, Senior Teacher, Government Secondary School, Hadecha District Jalore for getting him sanctioned the benefit of Assured Career Progression ('ACF). In all, the petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000/ - and out of which half of the amount i.e. Rs. 2500/ - was paid subject to the condition that the remaining amount shall be paid on completion of work. In that background, Mohanlal submitted a written complaint to the Anti -Corruption Bureau ('ACB') narrating all the facts and in the complaint, it is also averred that vide order dt. 09.10.2013 benefit of ACP has been granted to him. The complainant Mohanlal has further stated in the complaint that he is not willing to fulfil the demand of the petitioner and want him to be trapped for demanding illegal gratification. On receipt of the complaint, the officials of ACB made endeavour to verify the facts and planned a trap which was executed on 22.01.2014. The trap planned by ACB sleuths proved productive and the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification. After completing the investigation, the investigating agency approached the competent authority of the Education Department for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. The competent authority after examining the matter by the order impugned issued sanction for prosecution against the petitioner which is the bone of contention in the present petition.
(2.) To question the impugned order, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the entire complaint of the complainant Mohanlal is founded on false and fabricated facts and as a matter of fact, he never demanded illegal gratification from him. It is also averred in the writ petition that for sanctioning ACP, the petitioner is not the competent authority and his only responsibility was to place the file before the competent authority for the ACP proposal. It is further submitted in the writ petition that when the complainant Mohanlal himself has admitted that ACP has already been granted to him vide order dt. 09.10.2013, there was no occasion for the petitioner demand any gratification. The facts stated in the complaint are also disputed by submitting that on 25.08.2013 he was not at Sanchore Camp inasmuch as it was Sunday and as such there was no occasion for him to attend the Camp and so also to accept the part of illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 2500/ - from the complainant. The petitioner has also questioned the grant of prosecution sanction on the ground that the same has been issued illegally without application of mind and without prima facie determining his culpability for the alleged offences.
(3.) Voicing his grievance against the impugned order, the petitioner has urged in the writ petition that may it be, while granting sanction for prosecution, the competent authority was exercising its administrative power, but then too, it was expected of it to record its satisfaction on the strength of available material for taking an affirmative decision. The impugned order is also challenged by the petitioner by categorizing the same as outcome of arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. The petitioner has also taken shelter of Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') by urging that for granting sanction for prosecution, it is pre -requisite that alleged offence has been committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. Lastly, the petitioner has also taken shelter of Arts. 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India.;