MUVVA RAMALINGAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this Interlocutory Application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. seeking review of the order dtd. 25/10/2019 passed in W.P.No.46248 of 2016, wherein and whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.9, Education [(SE:Vig.I(1)] Department, dtd. 16/4/2014 issued by the 3rdrespondent i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner by exercising power conferred by Clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act") for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1)(d) of the Act and for any other cognate offence under the provisions of law for the time being in force.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as a District Educational Officer in Guntur District during the year 2007, one Mr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the Correspondent of Aravinda High School, Kunchavapalli Village made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau against the petitioner stating that he demanded Rs.50,000.00(Rupees fifty thousand) for forwarding supplementary Nominal Rolls of one candidate and for doing official favour to process and to recommend for the up-gradation of VI to X Class. Pursuant there to, Crime No. 12/TCT-ACB-VJA/2007 was registered against the petitioner under Sec. 7 of the Act by the ACB. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent ACB officials laid a trap successfully on 13/11/2007. The 2ndrespondent moved the Government for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7 and 13 (2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Government ordered the District Secretary to submit a Final report on 12/1/2009. The Government vide Memo No. 18195/SE-Vig.1(1)/2007-7, dtd. 25/3/2011, after carefully considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, decided that initiation of departmental enquiry is sufficient to probe the matter in detail instead of prosecution in a Court of law and also passed orders on 28/5/2011. Thereafter, on 25/8/2011 the 2ndrespondent had furnished Articles of charges in respect of trap case. The request of the 2ndrespondent for sanction of prosecution of petitioner under Sec. 19 was not accorded by the Government in various proceedings:

(3.) The grounds which led to filing of the present review application are as under:-