1. The petitioner is a member of Indian Administrative Services and he was posted as Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Raipur for the period 30.5.2014 to 18.2.2015. First Information Report No.9/2015 was lodged by the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Raipur against the petitioner and some other persons for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 409 & 420 of the IPC and Section 11, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter called as “the PC Act”), charge-sheet was filed against all other persons except the petitioner and Dr.Alok Shukla on 6.6.2015 stating inter-alia that investigation has already been completed and since sanction for prosecution has to be obtained against the above-stated two officers, supplementary charge-sheet will be filed against them upon receipt of sanction for prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that the State Government has granted sanction for prosecution against against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 109, 120B, 409 and 420 of the IPC.

2. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition (Cr.) No.170 of 2015 (Anil Tuteja vs. Union of India and others) questioning the order granting sanction by the State Government dated 17.7.2015 for the offence under Sections 109, 120B, 420 and 409 of the IPC and also questioned the memo by which the State Government has referred the matter to the Central Government under Section 19(1) (b) of the PC Act for grant of sanction of prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act as the Central Government is appointing authority of the petitioner. It was also prayed that proposed prosecution against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

3. This Court by order dated 28.8.2015 admitted that writ petition for consideration and rejected the application for grant of interim relief. Against which, Writ Appeal No.562 of 2015 (Anil Tuteja vs. Union of India and others) was filed, which has been disposed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1.3.2016.

4. Now, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make fresh or de novo investigation or to make re-investigation in respect of allegation levelled against the petitioner and for issuance of appropriate writ protecting his fundamental and constitutional rights under the Constitution of India.

5. Mr.B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the writ petition on the question of admission confining his submission to the further investigation would submit that in view of the subsequent development, further investigation is necessary. He would further submit that the State Government has made statement before the State Legislature on different dates which would show that prosecution agency and the State authorities are coming with two different versions or blowing hot and cold at the same breathe and documents placed before the State Legislature would show that no procurement or distribution of poor quality of rice has taken place at any point of time much less during the tenure of the petitioner as Managing Director of NAN and since the petitioner's liberty is involved and the State instrumentalities are coming with a definite plea after filing of charge-sheet that no procurement or distribution of poor quality of rice has taken place at any point of time, therefore, it is a fit case where further investigation can be directed. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Chandrababu Naidu vs. State through Inspector of Police & ors, (2015) 8 SCC 774.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.

7. It is not in dispute that FIR against the petitioner has been registered and investigation has been done, but charge-sheet is pending consideration and filing for want of necessary sanction under Section 19(1) (b) of the PC Ac