AWADH NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Clerk and was posted in various offices of the District Supply Office in various districts of Uttar Pradesh. At the relevant moment of time, the petitioner was posted in the District Supply Office at Ghaziabad. A criminal case was registered against certain employees in the year 1995 in which the petitioner was not named. It is alleged that charge-sheet against these persons was filed and the petitioner was named as a witness. However, on 28.7.2003 the petitioner was arrested, but, subsequently was enlarged on bail by an order dated 5.9.2003. On account of his detention, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 2.8.2003. The petitioner applied for revocation of the suspension order. The District Magistrate initiated an inquiry, in which an inquiry report was submitted and, based on this inquiry report, the District Magistrate passed an order on 12.2.2004 revoking the suspension order and reinstating the petitioner. On 16.9.2006 the Senior Superintendent of Police issued a letter to the District Magistrate requesting him to grant permission for prosecuting the petitioner in Case Crime No. 201 of 1995. Opinion from the Government Advocate (Criminal), Ghaziabad was obtained, who opined that it was not a fit case for granting sanction. It transpires that, based on this opinion, the District Magistrate declined to sanction prosecution of the petitioner.

(2.) It transpires, that another letter was issued to the District Magistrate on 23.2.2010 seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary issued a letter dated 8.3.2010 directing the District Magistrate to grant permission to prosecute the petitioner. On the basis of this letter the District Magistrate issued an order dated 11.3.2010 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.