JUDGMENT

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–

The present writ application has been preferred challenging the sanction order as contained in Memo No. 139 dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure ‘6’) issued by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Law, Bihar who is the competent authority for grant of sanction in the present case.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A,120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C.Act’).

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure ‘6’) on two grounds which this Court will deal with after briefly stating the allegations as contained in First Information Report and the subsequent developments in course of investigation.

4. Petitioner who was posted as Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) at the time of filing the writ application was earlier in the year 2007- 2008 posted as the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Gaighat, Muzaffarpur. It is stated that during the said period vast areas of the said Block was facing devastating flood, there were huge damage to the crops of the farmers. To compensate the farmers against their loss, the State Government decided to compensate it.

5. In order to maintain the transparency into the exercise of distribution of reliefs measures and compensation, the Government of Bihar vide its letter No. 1388 dated 24.07.2004 constituted a committee called Anushravan-cum-Vigilance Committee at the district, block as well as panchayat level. The petitioner claims that he was not a member of the Committee. He has given the constitution of the committee wherein Mukhiya, Members of the Wards of the Panchayat, first runner up of the last Mukhiya election, representative of the political parties, members of the Panchayat Samiti who reside within the Panchayat area and Panchayat Samiti/Revenue Karamchari are the members of the committee. The Mukhiya is the Chairman and the Revenue Karamchari is the Member Secretary.

6. The Department of Agriculture vide letter No. 3134 dated 31.08.2007 issued guidelines for the distribution of compensation after assessing the loss Khesra/plot wise. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the government guidelines, the Panchayat Sewak/Circle Inspector/Jan Sewak was entrusted with the work of calculating the Khesra wise damage caused to the crops, identification of the beneficiaries and preparation of the list of all beneficiaries. The said list was required to be placed before the Anushravan-cum-Vigilance Committee three days prior to the date of disbursement of the compensation and on the basis of the approval/recommendation of the said committee, compensation amount was to be paid in presence of the committee as per the guidelines, the farmer entitled to be paid a sum below Rs. 2,000/- in cash on receipt of his signature in presence of Mukhiya/Panchayat Sewak/Revenue Karamchari.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he being the Block Development Officer, in view of the large scale nature of the relief work and looking into the vast number of people affected by the flood during the relevant time himself issued specific directions vide letter no. 1444 dated 12.11.2007 to all the concerned officers in charge of the relief operation at the Panchayat level including the Circle officers to ensure that the distribution of the compensation as well as other relief material are made in a fair and transparent manner. He has enclosed his letter as Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application.

8. It is stated that at a much later stage on the basis of a written report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau the present vigilance case has been lodged against the petitioner and others containing allegation of embezzlement of government money during the reliefs operation carried out in