(Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J.)

1. This writ petition is filed in public interest questioning the action of the 1st respondent in not according sanction to the 2nd respondent to prosecute the 4th respondent for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Facts, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a case in Crime No. 8/ACB-CIU-HYD/2006 on 10.11.2006 against the 4th respondent for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After obtaining search warrants from the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad simultaneous searches were conducted on the residential premises of the 4th respondent and in his office room. Certain incriminating documents were seized. The 1st respondent placed the 4th respondent under suspension vide G.O.Rt. No. 90 Home (SC.A) Dept, dated 22.11.2006. Pursuant to a preliminary report submitted by the 2nd respondent on 12.12.2006, and on receipt of authorization from the 1st respondent, an application was moved and, on permission being accorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, the properties of the 4th respondent were attached. On the representation of the 4th respondent the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No.90 dated 18.01.2008, reinstated him into service pending finalization of the ACB enquiry. On completion of investigation the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc. No.204/RCA-CIU/2006 dated 06.08.2008, submitted the final report to the 1st respondent wherein he recorded a finding that the 4th respondent had acquired assets worth Rs.43,87,669.71/-disproportionate to his known sources of income. The draft sanction order, the imputations of misconduct and the list of witnesses and documents were enclosed to the said report and the 1st respondent was requested to accord sanction for the prosecution of the 4th respondent.

2. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms. No.25 Home (SC.A) Dept, dated 15.01.2009, directed initiation of a departmental enquiry against the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent was directed to furnish the draft articles of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct and the list of witnesses and documents etc., for initiating departmental action. Since G.O.Ms. No.25 dated 15.01.2009 made no mention, regarding sanction for prosecution of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent, vide letter in Rc. No.204/RCA-CIU/2006 dated 02.02.2009, requested the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and issue revised orders according sanction for prosecution as the 4th respondent, in his view, did not deserve lenient treatment. However the 1st respondent, by memo No.1843/SC.A/A1/2006-11 dated 29.04.2009, reiterated the orders issued earlier in G.O.Ms. No.25 dated 15.01.2009. Thereafter a final report was filed in the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad on 16.07.2009 requesting that orders be issued for closure of the F.I.R. and return of the seized records and documents. The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, by order in Application No.622 of 2009 in Crime No.8 of 2006 dated 31.07.2009, accepted the final report, closed the F.I.R and directed that the seized records be returned to the investigating officer. Detailed affidavits, counter affidavits and additional affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and the respondents in this writ petition. Oral submissions were made by Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government, Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd resondent Anti-couuption Bureau and Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

The rival contentions urged before this Court can, conveniently, be classified as under:-

SANCTION ORDER – IS IT BEREFT OF REASONS? DOES IT ALSO SUFFER FR