MUNSHI LAL SHAKYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 28.7.2003 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Deputy Inspector General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur and Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Banswara be directed to file final report before the competent court in respect of case No. 302/2000 under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") registered in the Anti- Corruption Department against the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 be further directed not to write letters pressurizing the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner was LDC in the Education Department and he was posted in the office of the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara in the year 1995. According to the petitioner, on 14.7.2000, a trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau on the complaint of one Shankerlal Rawat that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 50/- each from ten teachers for passing their arrear bills and in the trap, Rs. 500/- were recovered from an almirah and upon this, FIR being No. 302/2000 under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1988 was registered in the Anti-Corruption Department against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Section 19 of the Act of 1988, prior sanction was necessary for prosecution of the petitioner and that sanction was to be given by the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary), who is appointing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, the Anti Corruption Bureau sought sanction from the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary) for prosecution of the petitioner, but the respondent No. 5 District Education Officer (Elementary) refused to give sanction twice vide orders dated 6.2.2001 and 25.4.2001. The further case of the petitioner is that a departmental enquiry was also initiated against him on the same cause of action and the same was conducted by Shri R.C. Garg, Additional District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara, who submitted his report on 24.1.2001 (Annex.P/2) exonerating the petitioner of all the charges framed against him on the complaint of one Shankerlal holding inter-alia :

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that through report Annex.P/2 dated 24.1.2001, the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry initiated on the complaint made by one Shankerlal and not only this, the main charge against the petitioner was that he demanded money from ten persons and as per report Annex.P/2, it is also established that all the ten persons denied that fact and, therefore, through report Annex.P/2, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him.