VIJAY BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. M. Sahai, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the order refusing to sanction prosecution could be reviewed. The petitioner was a junior Engineer. He was alleged to have been apprehended by Inspector Vigilence in 1981. Since petitioner could be prosecuted only after obtain ing sanction of appointing authority the papers were sent to the Chief Engineer, U. P. State Electricty Board. On 23rd August, 1983 he passed the order that after perusal of material on record and case diary he was satisfied that no prima facie case was made out. He, therefore, did not grant sanction conse quently the suspension order was revoked on 29th August, 1983 and petitioner was reinstated. On 5th April, 1984 the order was reviewed by the same Chief Engineer on same material. In counter-affidavit filed by the authority concerned, himself, (he only reason given to review the order is erroneous impression. Not a word has been said that some new material was placed before him. This court on 26th April, 1984 therefore, stayed further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 5th April, 1984.

(2.) SECTION 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 extends protec tion to a public servant against unwarranted harassment. It should, therefore, be construed in a manner which subserves the objective of its enactment keeping this in view if the order of 5th April, 1984 is examined it leaves no room for doubt that it cannot be sustained. The order refusing to sanction was passed on entire material, case diary etc. The appointing authority was satisfied that no prima facie case was made out. What made him change his view ? Not any fresh material but erroneous impression. Such review or going back on earlier order is fraught with danger. It is destructive of certainty and finality. It may leave room open for influence and pressure. An order, judicial or administrative, may be permitted to be reviewed or recalled only if it was passed under misapprehension of fact. Otherwise it gives rise to misgiving and speculation which is not conducive to the sense of justice. Since the earlier order was passed after careful consideration of material on record the opposite-party was precluded from recalling it or passing fresh order on same material because of erroneous impression.