Kishan Gopal vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vineet Kothari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that:-

(A) the instant petition for writ may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner.

(B) the impugned order granting sanction against the humble petitioner (Annex. 6) dated 15th June 2012; the order (Annex. 8) dated 16th July 2012 and the order (Annex. 10) dated 1st Aug., 2012 as well as the suspension order of the humble petitioner dated 11th July, 2011 (Annex. 11) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(C) any other order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner;

(D) the cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.

Aggrieved by the sanction of prosecution against the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The only argument raised before this Court is that there was non-application of mind of the concerned competent authority, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, while sanctioning the prosecution and he had inextenso, quoted only the report of the Investigating Officer while sanctioning the said prosecution.

Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that thrice over the matter was referred back to the Chief Executive Officer by the Investigating Officer that the heading of the order, namely, ''draft'' is inadvertently mentioned and the same deserves to be deleted and the second the note appended on the second occasion while sanctioning the prosecution, was also required to be deleted. The said instructions of the Investigating Officer were complied with and the respondent, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, issued the fresh order for sanctioning of the prosecution.

The petitioner was working as ''Gram-Sevak'' in the Gram Panchayat-Surewala, Panchayat Samiti-Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, and is sought to be prosecuted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC.

Mr. Manish Patel, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel, submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has since been absorbed in the services of the respondent, Zila Parishad, under the Resolution dated 28.02.2012 and, therefore, the other contention which was sought to be raised earlier that the appointing authority being SPINFED, where the petitioner was earlier working and sent on deputation in the Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, could not sanction any such prosecution, does not survive since the petitioner''s services have been absorbed in the Panchayati Raj Department on 28.02.2012, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to controvert.

On the application of mind by the competent authority, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and urged that merely because the word ''draft'' was used in the title in the first instance and then a ''note'' was appended in the sanction order, the same does not vitiate the sanctioning of the prosecution and it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind by the concerned authority.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the sanction order, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner are of serious nature and he was caught red handed while taking bribe in connection with work of the complainant. The impugned prosecution order cannot be quashed on mere technical grounds that non-application of mind should be presumed because the word ''draft'' has been inadvertent used on the head of the said prosecution sanction order in the first instance vide Annex. 6 dated 15.06.2012, which was modified by the order (Annex. 8) dated 16.07.2012, in which the note appended by the Chief Executive Officer, in the following terms:

At the request of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh vide the Annex. 9 dated 01.08.2012, even the said ''Note'' was deleted by the Chief Executive Officer in the said sanction order.

Having perused the said order, this Court is of the opinion that the said note merely clarified that the word ''draft'' has been deleted in pursuance of the directions of the Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter dated 22.06.2012 and it does not show in any manner non-application of mind on the part of the Chief Executive Officer. The penultimate para of the said prosecution sanction order clearly stipulates that the report of the investigating agency has been carefully perused by the prosecution sanctioning authority and he found it to be a fit case, for granting the prosecution sanction. Such orders cannot be and do not deserve to be quashed for the technical reasons that the non-application of mind should be presumed merely because the impugned order reiterate the findings of the investigating officer. Mere reproduction of the same in the impugned order does not show the non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.

Looking to the gravity of the charges against the petitioner and in view of the wide spread corruption in implementation of the NREGA Scheme in the various Panchayat Samiti/s, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed summarily.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents for revocation of the prolonged suspension by way of appropriate representation, which the concerned authority is expected to decide the same in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.