1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare G.O.Ms.No.43, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries (VS.2) Department, dated 19.05.2011, according sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as illegal, arbitrary and without authority.

2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition may be stated as follows.

The petitioner was appointed as Civil Supervisor in Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Corporation Limited in December, 1978, got promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer and thereafter as Executive Engineer in the year 1993 and shifted to Fisheries Department on deputation in the year 1995. He married Smt. Venkata Krishna Bhavani, who is only daughter of Sri T.Gangaraju, a landlord, in the year 1983. His father-in-law purchased properties in the name of his daughter on love and affection. Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB.) registered a case against him by showing excess value of the properties. When the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’), he filed Writ Petition No.14942 of 2003, and by judgment dated 12.8.2003, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Government has no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension, and no appeal or review has been filed against the said judgment. Writ Petition No.17537 of 2009 filed by the petitioner challenging G.O.Ms.No.122, AHDD & F Department, dated 17.12.2008 keeping him under suspension, was allowed by judgment dated 4.11.2009. Against the said judgment, the Government filed Writ Appeal No.1470 of 2009, wherein interim suspension was granted. Against G.O.Ms.No.116, AH & Fisheries Department, dated 28.10.1998, repatriating the petitioner to A.P. Fisheries Corporation Limited, the petitioner filed O.A.528 of 2001, Writ Petition NO.18886 of 2001 and finally Civil Appeal Nos. 2605 to 2607 of 2003, which were dismissed, and therefore it attained finality. Apprehending his repatriation to his parent department, which is under liquidation, as per the said G.O., the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3824 of 2010, wherein this Court vide order dated 15.6.2010 directed the respondents to obtain suitable orders in the Writ Appeal said to be pending, if they want to repatriate the petitioner to the Corporation during pendency of departmental proceedings against him. The Government filed Writ Appeal No.73 of 2011 against the order in Writ Appeal No.3824 of 2010, wherein the operation of the impugned order was stayed. Thus, the repatriation of the petitioner ordered in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 28.10.1998, which attained finality, remained in tact, subject to outcome of Writ Appeal No.73 of 2011, and the suspension of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms. NO.122, dated 17.12.2008 is also intact, subject to outcome of Writ Appeal No.1470 of 2009. In so far the repatriation of the petitioner is concerned, as recorded in judgment in Writ Petition No.17537 of 2009, the learned Advocate General, inter alia, raised a contention that since the Corporation is wound up, service regulations of the Corporation are no more existing.

Thereafter, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.43, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries (V.S.2) Department, dated 19.05.2011 according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is illegal, arbitrary and without authority or jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit and stating, inter alia, as follows:

The sanction accorded by the Government is proper and legally valid as the petitioner had been discharging public duty in connection with the a