The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not a mere formality and must be exercised with great care, caution, and circumspection, emphasizing the duty of the sanctioning authority to safeguard innocent employees and the importance of considering all material before granting sanction.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O.Ms.No.6, dated: 26.04.2017, wherein sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as illegal ,arbitrary, discriminatory, unwarranted, contrary to the service law principles, and in clear violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash all the proceedings pursuant to the impugned G.O.Ms .No.6, Dt.26-04-2017 , and issue any other orders which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of Justice.”

2. The claim of the petitioner is that he joined as Assistant Statistical Officer in Andhra Pradesh Economic and Statistical Services on 28.02.1994 and worked at Penagaluru, railway Koduru and Obulavaripally Mandals of YSR Kadapa District till 15.06.2011. It is stated that a case was registered against him by the Joint Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad vide Crime No. 10/RCA-TCT/2011 on the allegation that the petitioner had acquired and possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thereafter the investigation officer had confirmed that the petitioner has acquired an inordinate assets by corrupt and illegal means which is a travesty of investigation. The 1st respondent merely basing on a gross misinformation and without narrating any substantial grounds, issued the impugned G.O.Ms .No.6, Dated 26.04.2017. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the statement of the petitioner blaming the department on source report and registering the crime against him is not correct because the “Source Report” is the lookafter of the ACB Department and also the entire exercise in registering the crime against the petitioner also done by the ACB department. However, this department has admitted that the post of ASO is non focal post with extensive nature of tour in discharging the duties attached to the post, but a conclusion cannot be drawn in his favour invariably. Further with regard to the enquiry report, an assumption might be drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the worth of his assets grown by leaps and bounds because of land boom and rapid increase in the market prices in real estate, which cannot stand before the law, since the petitioner has failed to submit a clear cut accounts statement of his financial transactions rather than in a gross manner. It is also stated that as per the recommendations of the Director General, ACB and as well as Vigilance Commission the above G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 26.4.2017 was issued by the Government in Planning Department and as per the said G.O. the Planning Department have accorded permission to DG, ACB, A.P. to prosecute the petitioner. It is mainly stated that the petitioner has not made the DG, ACB, AP as the respondent though the lead role is from the ACB department. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the counter and contended that the ACB authorities failed to take into consideration the enquiry report and his detailed explanation with regard to acquisition of assets but recommended for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act unmindfully and in a casual manner. It is further stated that the Act of sanction is not an ideal formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act. It is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and it is a safe guard for the innocent public servant. The sanction authority shall exercise its discretion by applying its