Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) THE Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project -cum - Establishment (Non -Gazetted), Department of Water Resources, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, while exercising powers under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"), granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for various offences punishable under the Act of 1988. The petitioner was also placed under suspension as per Rule 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") by an order dated 30.5.2007. To assail validity of the orders aforesaid this petition for writ was presented before this Court on 11.6.2007, but the suspension has already been revoked on 29.8.2007 and as such now challenge survives only to the extent of approval for prosecution.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed, as per the original record available, is that the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer at Munda - II submitted a complaint to the competent authority regarding an encroachment made by Shri Satpal son of Shri Madanlal upon the area closed to Masitawali Head Chak -1, NDR Canal. On 8.12.2005, above named Shri Satpal made a complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh stating therein that the petitioner is demanding illegal gratification for not removing the encroachment made by him and on basis of the complaint aforesaid a trap was planned and organised on 8.12.2005, accordingly at about 4:30 p.m. on the same day Shri Satpal offered a sum of Rs. 2000/ -to a person namely Sitaram said to be a person to whom money was to be given under instructions of the petitioner and he accepted the same. The trap party conducted usual proceedings and lodged a criminal case against the petitioner. After the incident of trap office of the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project -cum -Establishment (Non -Gazetted) initiated proceedings for grant of sanction for prosecution as per Section 19 of the Act of 1988. The office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner remitted relevant record to the Chief Engineer to consider the issue relating to grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3(7), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120B IPC. A proposed draft sanction was also sent to the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project -cum - Establishment (Non -Gazetted). The Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project -cum - Establishment (Non -Gazetted) by a notice to show cause instructed the petitioner as to why the sanction as sought for be not granted. An opportunity of personal hearing too was allowed and the petitioner was instructed to appear before the competent authority for personal hearing on 6.7.2006. The competent authority after hearing the petitioner and also officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau reached at the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner and as such decided not to grant sanction for prosecution. While doing so the entire record was forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner as per Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group -III) Circular dated 30.5.2001. On 15.9.2006 the matter was placed before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources, who made a note "examine and put up". The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, examined the matter and made a note as under: I have gone through the file. Both the parties - ACB officers and the JEn. Sh. Vishnoi - are giving contradicting facts, therefore, in my view both of them should be called personally to present their case before the Secretary WR.
(3.) THE Secretary, Water Resources on 3.10.2006 made a note that "appointing authority for J.En. is C.E. Prosecution sanction is issued by appointing authority. This matter should not come to State Government". After the noting as above the matter was again placed before the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project -cum -Establishment (Non -Gazetted) who made a note that as per Government of Rajasthan circular dated 30.5.2001 the competent authority is required to forward his opinion before granting or rejecting the sanction for prosecution to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and, therefore, entire record of the case was again remitted to the Secretary, Department of Water Resources.;