PITAMBER HARWANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition for quashment of order Dt. 02.07.2013 (Annexure -19) passed by respondent No. 2 sanctioning prosecution against petitioner. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to reinstate services of petitioner with all consequential benefits. By aforesaid impugned order, the appropriate Government granted sanction against petitioner in due deference of order of the Court Dt. 17.09.2009. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that impugned order was illegally passed by said Court despite submitting negative Final Report by the Department of Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, and advising the Government to serve charge -sheet upon petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Accordingly, a charge -sheet was served upon petitioner. In the First Enquiry Report Dt. 27.10.2009, petitioner was exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however directed Denovo Enquiry. In the second enquiry also petitioner was exonerated by order Dt. 31.01.2012.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that while passing aforesaid order, the Court below has wrongly observed that there was sufficient material to prima facie prove offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against petitioner and, therefore, the matter was returned to the Anti Corruption Bureau for obtaining sanction for prosecution against petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner in this connection invited attention of the Court towards letter Dt. 03.12.2009 (Annexure -9) sent by Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara, to forward the matter to the Government for obtaining sanction without being influenced by the order of the Court. The Government ought not to have therefore taken any influence from aforesaid order and should not have mechanically issued the sanction.

(3.) AT this stage, however, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is under suspension since 03.04.2006 i.e. for last seven years and a considerable long period of seven years has gone by. Further contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that other employees, who were also accused in the same FIR, namely, Jeevan Ram Choudhary, who was also suspended, has been reinstated. If that be so, the respondents on application of the petitioner ought to consider revoking the order of his suspension order. With those observations, the writ petition is disposed of. This also disposes of stay application.