Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 24.12.2009, 4.1.2010 and consequential sanction order for prosecution dated 13.1.2010. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer -I (Electric) in Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Jodhpur (for short "JWNL") by order dated 2.4.2007 on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,950/ - per month. In June, 2008, Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi, a consumer of JWNL lodged a complaint in the office of the Anti -Corruption Bureau, Bikaner (fort short "the ACB") that, his electric connection had been discontinued on 24.6.2008 and the concerned Junior Engineer, namely, petitioner had asked for illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/ -
(2.) A trap was laid in which consumer Sh. Hanumana Ram offered a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -,to one Sh. Mokh Ram s/o Sh. Banwari Lal, a private contractor along with the bill for depositing the same with the cashier. Since the cashier had closed the cash -book, the said amount along with bill was handed over to Sh. Moola Ram for depositing the same on the next working day. the trap party found the amount of Rs. 2000/ - from Sh. Moola Ram and on that count, an F.L.R: was registered and sent to the Anti -Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, on the basis of which the Anti -Corruption Bureau, Jaipur registered case No. 157/2008 against the petitioner, Shri Moola Ram(Helper -I) as well as Mokh Ram on 5.7.2008. Subsequent to the F.I.R., a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. The Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jodhpur through its communication dated 17.10.2008 forwarded the entire record to respondent No. 3 for issuing sanction order. Respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief Engineer examined the record and also consulted the Investigating Officer and it emerged that on 24:6.2008 during investigation, the Vigilance Party of JWNL found theft of electricity in the domestic connection of Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi and the same was disconnected immediately. For the purpose of re -connection of electric connection, consumer Sh. Hanumana Ram Bishnoi was required to deposit the compounding money to the tune of Rs. 2000/ -. In view of the material available on record, the competent authority came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show or suggest the demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner or Sh. Moola Ram and clearly refused to grant sanction for sanction. The same was communicated to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (ACB), Jodhpur on 12.1.2009. The Managing Director, JWNL also examined the record and by a communication dated 30.10.2009, requested the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy, Jaipur to approve the decision taken for not granting sanction of prosecution against the petitioner. However, respondent No. 5 directed the Managing Director of JWNL to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as well as Sh. Moola Ram. On the basis of communication dated 24.12.2009, the Managing Directed on 4.1.2010 directed the Chief Engineer to issue sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. On the basis of the dictates of the higher authorities, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted on 13.1.2010. Aggrieved against the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that this sanction order is not sustainable on account of the fact that the competent authority having duly applied its mind, came to -the conclusion that no case for demand of illegal gratification had been made against the petitioner and as such, the order directing the respondent to issue sanction for prosecution amounts to usurping the powers of the competent authority. It is contended that respondent No. 2 the Managing Director himself examined the record and concurred with the opinion of the Chief Engineer -the competent authority to issue sanction order. It is contended that once the competent authority, the Chief Engineer in the present case, had refused to accord sanction to prosecute, there was no occasion for any interference in the same wi9thout there being any fresh evidence or cogent reasons to do so.;