SOM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered in the services of the Municipal Board, Nimaj being appointed as Sub Nakedar in the year 1977. A promotion to him was accorded as Nakedar in the year 1982. He was further promoted as Assistant Revenue Inspector in the year 1991. The Municipal Board, Nimaj was abolished in the year 1991 itself, therefore, the services of the petitioner were transferred to Municipal Board, Beghu. In the year 1994 he was transferred from Municipal Board, Beghu to Municipal Board, Bilara in district Jodhpur. The lien of the petitioner too was permanently transferred with Municipal Board, Bilara on 2.1.1996. The promotion then was given to the petitioner as Revenue Inspector. Under an order dated 23.5.1997 the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Board, Pushkar, however, by an order dated 25.5.1998 he was again transferred to his parent municipal board i.e.Municipal Board, Bilara.

(2.) A criminal case was lodged in the year 2004 by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ajmer somewhere in the year 2004, wherein at initial stage the petitioner was not included in the list of accused persons, however, at a subsequent stage he too was also included as an accused. The Municipal Board, Pushkar in its meeting dated 15.7.2006 granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Act of 1988), while denying to grant such sanction for other employees viz. Nand Kishore and Paras Kumar Jain. By this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to the sanction granted as aforesaid.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Sec. 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 a permission for prosecution of the petitioner could have been granted only by the authority competent to remove him from his office and in the instant case the power has been exercised by Municipal Board, Pushkar that is not having such authority. It is asserted that the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Board , Bilara, therefore, the authority for grant of sanction to prosecute could have been granted only by his parent municipal board.