SATISH CHANDRA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the sanction order for prosecution - order dated 21-4-1994 - the petitioner has challenged the same by way of this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in 1961, the petitioner was appointed as a junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department. Subsequently, he joined the military transport services. But in December 1966, he came back to the Irrigation Department as an Assistant Engineer. In 1979, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. In 1982, he was posted as a Liaison and procurement Officer in the Rajasthan Canal project which was later on re-named as indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojanay He was posted in Delhi from 1982 to 1987, The petitioner claims that in 1993 he learnt that a fir was lodged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, at Bikaner, relating to purchase of some material which was made in the year 1984 from M/s. Manju Shri enterprises, Bikaner. According to the petitioner, he was not named in the FIR. He further claims that with regard to the said purchase, the Lokayukta had conducted an inquiry. In trie" report of the Lokayukta, dated 2-6-1989, nothing adverse was recorded against him However, notwithstanding the report of the Lokayukta, vide order dated 21-4-1994, the Sanctioning Authority passed an order for the prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Section 5 (l) (d)read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for offences under sections 420,467,471, 120-B of IRQ. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) MR. R. L. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, in the report of the Lokayukta dated 2-6-1989, no finding was given with regard to any illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner. Moreover, according to the reply submitted by the State, the said report was placed before the Sanctioning Authority. However, notwithstanding the said report of the Lokayukta, the Sanctioning Authority has passed the impugned order. Relying upon the case of Madhya Pradesh Special police Establishment v. State of Madhya pradesh and Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 325), the learned counsel has argued that the report of the Lokayukta should not have been brushed aside. In fact, weightage should have been given to the said report. Since the Sanctioning Authority has ignored the report of the Lokayukta, the sanctioning order is unsustainable. Secondly, all the material collected during the investigation was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the sanction order is unsustainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan (AIR 2008 SC 1908) : (2008 Cri LJ 347 ).