KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a lower division clerk, with Department of Irrigation suffered a trap on basis of a written complaint submitted by one Sh. Shankar Lal with allegation against petitioner for demanding bribe for a sum of Rs. 3000/ -. The trap was laid by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation on 15.10.1996, but no money as alleged was recovered from the petitioner. The Executive Engineer, in subordination of whom the petitioner was posted, after considering all circumstances relating to the incident of trap aforesaid informed the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sriganganagar that no prima facie case against the petitioner was made out, therefore, no necessity is there to place him under suspension as per the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The Superintending Engineer at its own level also examined the matter and reached at the conclusion that suspension of the petitioner from service shall not be jaroper. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh Junction by his letter dated 26.11.1996 instructed the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sriganganagar to verify all necessary facts required for consideration of the issue relating to grant of sanction for prosecution of petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In response thereto the Superintending Engineer vide communication dated 11.6.1997 informed the Chief Engineer that the petitioner was not concerned with the work relating to complainant Sh. Shankar Lal and also that thework concerned stood completed even prior to incident of trap made by the Rajasthan Anti Corruption Bureau on 15.10.1996, therefore, no need was there to grant sanction for prosecution. The Chief Engineer also considered all relevant issues at his own level, and thereafter, convened a meeting with Addl. Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Superintendent of Police (Third), Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau on 19.12.1997. All the three officers referred above considered all the events taken place on 15.4.1997 and reached at the conclusion that the petitioner had no role to deal with the work relating to complainant Sh. Shankar Lal and also that the petitioner was not at all concerned with any demand as alleged in the, complaint. Accordingly, a conscious decision was taken for not according sanction, to prosecute the petitioner. A detailed note made by the Committee of the officers mentioned above is available on record as Annexure -10. Subsequent thereto, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Irrigation after a lapse of about 29 months instructed the Chief Engineer (North) Irrigation Department, Hanumangarh Junction under a communication dated 23.9.1999 to issue sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the contents of the letter dated 22.9.1999 are quoted below;

(2.) IN pursuant to the letter dated 23.9.1999 the Chief Engineer Irrigation (North) Hanumangarh Junction passed an order dated 15.10.1999 granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The order dated 15.10.1999 reads as follows:

(3.) WHILE challenging the order dated 15.10.1999 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the contention of Sh. Vineet Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that as per Rule 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 no court is required to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the person concerned from office. The competent authority to remove the petitioner from office is the Chief Engineer, however, in the instant case the Chief Engineer has simply acted upon the instructions given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, thus, the present one is a case of abdication of powers, therefore, the order Impugned granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1988. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a conscious decision for not granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner was taken by the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, who is the authority competent, on 19.12.1997 after due consultation with Additional Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Sriganganagar and Superintendent of Police (Third), Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur, therefore, no need was there to alter the decision already taken. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, for any reason if such alteration was required then that could have been made only after providing cogent reasons to do so and in the letter dated 23.9.1999 and order dated 15.10.1999 absence of such reasons is on face.