TEJVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 17.10.2012 (Annx.12) whereby the competent authority has granted sanction for prosecution to the petitioner for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and Section 120 -B IPC. The question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is whether the competent authority had power of review once he decided not to grant prosecution sanction of the petitioner as required under Section 19 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on a written complaint submitted by the complainant preliminary enquiry was made and trap proceedings were conducted and as a result thereof, FIR No.12/2010 came to be registered against the petitioner and co -accused for the offences 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and Section 120 -B IPC and on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, prosecution sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act was sought by A.C.B. from the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservative of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur and he vide letter dated 24.5.2011 (Annx.4) written to Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Rajasthan tentatively found that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted against the petitioner. As per circular dated 6.4.2002 (Annx.5), the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservative of Forest sought opinion from the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, State of Rajasthan and he, on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and more particularly looking to the transcript prepared, found that there is good prima facie evidence and, therefore, prosecution sanction should be granted against the petitioner but as the competent authority had a different opinion, opinion of CVC was solicited. Thereafter, the question of grant of sanction against the petitioner was referred to Additional Chief Secretary, (Home) -cum -CVC, but no opinion appears to be given by him so far as the present petitioner is concerned and the same was approved by the Minister In -charge also. Thereafter, a letter (Annx.10) was written by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest, State of Rajasthan to the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservative of Forest with the opinion to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner. Ultimately, vide Annx.12 dated 17.10.2012, the impugned order granting prosecution sanction was issued which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this writ petition.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the competent authority after considering the entire evidence collected during investigation and having discussion with the investigating officer came to a conclusion that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction, as required under Section 19 of the Act, is to be granted against the petitioner, he had no jurisdiction to review the same without there being additional evidence more particularly on the direction of the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department and to grant prosecution sanction vide impugned order dated 17.10.2012. It was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that if the competent authority once refuses to grant prosecution sanction against a public servant as required under Section 19 of the Act, he has no jurisdiction and authority to review the same and to grant sanction if additional evidence is not placed before him requiring reconsideration of his previous decision. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that the competent authority has to take his own independent decision on the basis of evidence placed before him to grant or not to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant and if such a decision is taken by him under the direction/pressure/influence of a higher authority, the same becomes tainted and it is liable to be quashed and set aside by the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, an independent decision was taken by the competent authority finding that it is not a fit case in which prosecution sanction is to be granted against the petitioner, but the matter was referred to the Government as per requirement of the Circular dated 6.4.2002 and on the decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, State of Rajasthan, a letter was written by the Deputy Secretary, Forest to the competent authority directing him to grant sanction against the petitioner and in pursuance of such direction, the competent authority without referring his previous decision mechanically vide impugned order dated 17.10.2012 granted sanction against the petitioner.