BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order on charge dated 20. 9. 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi directing that a charge under Section 120b IPC read with Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be framed against all the accused persons including the petitioner herein (Satish Kumar Arora ). A separate charge was also directed to be framed against all the accused under sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The charge against the petitioner is that he, being a public servant, working as Deputy Regional Director, National Saving Organisation, ministry of Finance, Tis Hazari, Delhi, during the period 1999, demanded and accepted different amounts ranging between Rs 200/- to Rs 800/- from different agents who were running National Saving Agencies for a motive or reward of clearing their commission bills and for renewal of their savings agencies. It is also alleged that the petitioner by abusing his official position or otherwise by corrupt or illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage of different amounts ranging between Rs 200/- to Rs 800/- from the agents of his organisation. Furthermore, there was an allegation of conspiracy between the petitioner and the two other co-accused. It is in these circumstances, that the charges, as directed by the impugned order dated 20. 9. 2004, were framed against the petitioner as well as the other co-accused by separate orders of the same date,. e. 20. 9. 2004

( 2 ) THE facts are that on 6. 5. 1999 a complaint against Shri H. K. Pal, district Savings Officer, National Savings, Tis Hazari, Delhi, was lodged with the Regional Director, National Savings Organisation, Deen Dayal Upadhaya Marg, new Delhi, by the agents of the National Savings Organsation, alleging inter alia, corruption on the part of the said Shri H. K. Pal. On the basis of the said complaint, statements of several agents were recorded. Two of the statements contained allegations also against the present petitioner. On the basis of this complaint and the said statements, the petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 30. 9. 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was charge- sheeted and a departmental inquiry was ordered. The two articles of charge related to:- (1) Corruption charges; (2) Failure to take appropriate action against subordinate officers indulging in gross misconduct and harassing the agents and demanding and accepting bribes.

( 3 ) THE Inquiry Officer sent his report to the National Savings commissioner, Nagpur, on the basis of which Mr U. K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, ministry of Finance, issued an order, exonerating the petitioner from the first article of charge which related to corruption inasmuch as the same had not been proved. With regard to the second article of charge the same was held against the petitioner and a minor penalty was imposed thereon with regard to reduction of pay.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case being prosecuted by the CBI, inter alia, against the petitioner is based on the same allegation of corruption and alleged illegal gratification. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of framing of charges three legal objections were raised before the learned Special judge, to indicate that the charges cannot at be framed against the petitioner. The first objection was that the sanctioning authority which is also the appointing and removing authority is the National Savings Commissioner, Nagpur, who retired in July, 2001and thereafter, nobody was appointed till 24. 7. 2002. On that date Shri U. K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, was appointed as Disciplinary Authority, but no Gazetted Notification was placed on record in respect of such appointment. It was, therefore, contended that the sanction granted to Shri U. K. Sinha in the abs