The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the competent authority, and subsequent government orders can affect ongoing investigations but do not completely annul the proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting the inquiry to the 3rd respondent/Lokayukta; order dated 05-05-2022 passed by the 2nd respondent according sanction for his prosecution and has sought for consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri A.T. Kattimani, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Anil Kale, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 3.

3. Facts, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner is appointed as an Agriculture Officer in the services of the State Government with effect from 26-10-2002 and posted as Agriculture Officer at Gadag District. When the petitioner continued to work as Agriculture Officer and later as Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gadag certain complaints arose with regard to several lapses in implementation of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and a Scheme notified there under. The complaints arose on account of the report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The complaints resulted in entrusting the matter against several officers to the Lokayukta for conduct of inquiry and investigation with regard to faulty implementation of the Scheme in the State of Karnataka between 2007 and 2014 in terms of a Government order dated 09-09-2014. The allegations were irregularities in bills and wrongful disbursal of payments to people who have never worked.

4. The petitioner being the Agriculture Officer was one of the persons against whom allegations were made. The investigation goes on for a period of seven to eight years and when the investigation was complete, the Investigating Agency seeks sanction from the hands of the Competent Authority to prosecute the petitioner. The sanction was accorded on 05-05-2022. It is then the charge sheet is filed before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short), Sections 464, 465, 471, 420, 109, 120-B r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Act. It is the claim of the petitioner that it is only when the sanction order came about, he comes to know of the FIR being registered against him and was not questioned during the time of investigation. Based on the said ground and on the ground of delay in according sanction, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. This Court, accepting and entertaining the delay, granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings against the petitioner. During the pendency of these proceedings comes about a Government order dated 28-03-2023. The said Government order withdraws the earlier Government order dated 09-09-2014. It is then, the matter is moved for its disposal on the score that the Government order which withdrew the earlier Government order granting permission even to investigate takes away entire gamut of offences against the petitioner.

6. Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel representing the petitioner would contend that by a Government order dated 09-09-2014 permission was granted to investigate and also initiate departmental inquiry against all the guilty. Pursuant to the Government order several proceedings take place and sanction is also accorded for prosecution on 05-05-2022. He would submit that the subsequent Government order dated 28-03-2023 clearly takes away the effect of Government order dated 09-09-2014. Therefore, the very power that was conferred upon the Lokayukta to initiate departmental inquiry or prosecute is effaced lock stock barrel. He would submit that the petition be allowed and all proceedings be quashed in terms of the Government order. In the event that would not become acceptable to quas