Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) By way of this Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the accused -petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 29.9.2015 whereby the competent authority i.e. Director, Mines, Rajasthan Udaipur has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act")and Sec. 120 -B IPC. The question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is whether the competent authority had power to review its decision once he previously decided not to grant prosecution sanction in respect of petitioner as required under Sec. 19 of the Act.
(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on a written complaint submitted by the complainant, FIR No. 521/2012 came to be registered by Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur against the petitioner and co -accused on the premise that they entered into criminal conspiracy and demanded an amount of Rs. six lacs as bribe from the complainant in lieu of transfer of some Mines. It is to be noted that it is an admitted fact that trap proceedings against the petitioner or co -accused could not be conducted. On complaint being submitted the allegations made in the same were verified by the ACB and on further verification of the allegations, conversations allegedly taken place between complainant and petitioner were recorded and transcript were prepared. Although, trap could not be conducted and it is an admitted fact that no money was accepted by the petitioner or co -accused as bribe from the complainant or any other person and no recovery was made, but on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation charge -sheet for the aforesaid offence was prepared against the petitioner and co -accused the then Mining Engineer, Sikar. Letter No. 75 dated 3.2.2014 alongwith the draft of prosecution sanction was sent by the ACB to the Director, Mines Department, Udaipur i.e. the sanctioning authority for grant of sanction as required under Sec. 19 of the Act in respect of petitioner and the Director after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and investigating officer of the case and after perusal of evidence collected during investigation and also an affidavit meanwhile submitted by the complainant vide note -sheet dated 27.3.2014 took a tentative decision not to grant prosecution sanction in respect of the petitioner and letter dated 7.4.2014 was written by him to the Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department, as per circular dated 6.4.2002 about his proposal not to grant sanction but the Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department through Deputy Secretary vide letter dated 24.7.2014 asked the Director to reconsider his aforesaid proposal on merit in the light of points mentioned in the letter. The question of grant of sanction was reconsidered by the Director and the previous proposal made by him was reiterated vide letter dated 26.8.2014 written to Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department. It is to be noted that the Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department vide letters dated 8.10.2014, 6.1.2015, 27.7.15 and 25.8.2015 again and again asked the Director to reconsider his previous proposals not to grant sanction in respect of petitioner on merit in the light of points raised in these letters after considering the evidence collected during investigation. It is further to be noted that in the meanwhile ACD vide letter dated 26.8.2015 reminded the Director, Mines Department, Udaipur for his decision about grant of sanction in respect of the petitioner and in response to that letter, Director vide letter dated 31.8.2015 informed the ACB that vide letter dated 25.8.2015 Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department has been intimated by him about his decision not to grant prosecution sanction. From the material made available on record it is also clear that vide letter dated 25.8.2015 also, the competent authority i.e. Director, Mines Department, Udaipur wrote to Government of Rajasthan about his decision not to grant sanction. From the material made available on record it is further clear that vide note -sheet dated 10.9.2015, Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan concurred with the proposal of the competent authority but as per circular dated 6.4.2002 the aforesaid proposal was sent for the approval of CVC Rajasthan. It appears that CVC did not concur with the proposal. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.9.2015 Government of Rajasthan asked the Director, Mines Department, Udaipur i.e. the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction in respect of petitioner and vide impugned order dated 29.9.2015 prosecution sanction as required under Sec. 19 of the Act was granted by the Director and it is this order which is under challenge by way of this writ petition.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the competent authority i.e. Director, Mines Department, Udaipur after considering the evidence collected during investigation and having discussion with the investigating officer and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner came to a conclusion that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction as required under Sec. 19 of the Act is to be granted against the petitioner, he had no jurisdiction to review/reconsider the same without there being additional/fresh evidence more particularly on the direction of the Deputy Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan and to grant sanction vide impugned order dated 29.9.2015. It was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that if the competent authority once refuses to grant prosecution sanction against a public servant as required under Sec. 19 of the Act, he has no jurisdiction and authority to review the same and to grant sanction if additional evidence is not placed before him requiring reconsideration of his previous decision. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that the competent authority has to take his own independent decision on the basis of evidence placed before him to grant or not to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant and if such a decision is taken by him under the direction/pressure/influence of a higher authority, the same becomes tainted and is liable to be quashed and set aside by the Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case independent decision was taken by the competent authority more than once to the effect that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted against the petitioner, but the matter was referred to the Government and on the basis of letter dated 24.9.2015 of the Deputy Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan and more particularly on the basis of direction given in this letter, the Director without referring his previous decisions mechanically vide impugned order dated 29.9.2015 granted sanction against the petitioner. It was submitted that such order carries no authenticity and has been passed without application of mind only on the basis of direction of a higher authority and it is not sanction in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. It was also submitted that otherwise also the sanction authority i.e. the Director has granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner mechanically without application of mind merely on the basis of draft of sanction provided by the ACB vide letter dated 3.2.2014.;