SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. By way of the present petitions Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) assails the orders granting sanction dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 passed by the Competent Authority, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; the charge sheet in RC No. SI8 E0001 1999 submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CBI’) in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi dated 28.06.2002; the order on charge dated 17.12.2005 in RC No.SI8 E 0001 1999 dated 29.01.1999 in CC No.26 of 2002 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi; and the order of the Special Judge, CBI 03 (PC Act)dated 24.05.2014 in RC No. SI9 1999 E0006 dated 07.12.1999 in CC No. 55/02. The present petitions raise common issues and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. According to the petitioner, the genesis of the present litigation is the disagreement between him and his immediate superior qua the discharge of the former’s official duties, which were of a sensitive nature. The present is a manifestation of how the career of an IRS Officer has been blighted by litigation between him on the one hand and the official respondents on the other. The present is the umpteenth round of litigation between the parties arising out of the subject RCs.

3. At the very outset it is noticed that as a consequence of the registration of the subject RCs, the petitioner was placed under suspension which was renewed from time to time for a period of over 14 years during the pendency of a Disciplinary Enquiry. The suspension was finally revoked and set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 22.11.2013 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9454/2013, as elaborated hereinafter. The Supreme Court, returned a finding that the proceedings against the petitioner suffered from the vice of legal malice. It is further noticed that when the Supreme Court passed the afore-stated judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, a period of 9 years remained for the petitioner to attain the age of superannuation. Currently, only 6 years remain till the petitioner reaches the age of superannuation. The petitioner was also arrested on two occasions namely, 23.12.1999 and 09.12.2000 in relation to the subject RCs.

4. The case in RC No. SI8 E0001 1999 is grounded entirely on the disclosure statement of one Mr. Abhishek Verma. The curious flip flops of Mr. Abhishek Verma, on whose sole testimony, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are dependant are elaborated later in this order, eventually leading to a retraction of the former’s statement as contained in an application dated 31.07.2014 filed before the Special Judge to the effect that he had been forced, pressurized, coerced and threatened by the Investigating Officer in the RC No. SI8 E0001 1999 to make the afore-stated disclosure.

5. The facts relevant for the disposal of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1401/2001 relating to RC No.SI8 E 0001 1999 dated 29.01.1999 are as follows :-

(1) The petitioner herein was the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (Delhi Zone), Ministry of Finance during 1997-1998.

(2) On 01.01.1998, the petitioner conducted a raid at the office of one Mr. Subhash Chandra Barjatya (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mr. Barjatya’) at the Maurya Sheraton Hotel, Delhi and seized a Fax message dated 23.12.1997 (for short ‘the Fax in question’) from the top of the Fax Machine of the latter. It is an admitted position that the Fax in question was a debit advice purportedly from the Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland and reflected that a sum of USD 150,000 was transferred from the account of one Royalle Foundation held in the said bank to one Mr. S.K. Kapoor in the latter’s account in HSBC Bank, Hong Kong.

(3) The said Mr. Barjatya is stated to be a Delhi based jeweler.

(4) Interestingly enough, in the report of the Superintendent of Police, CBI (hereinafter referred to as ‘SP’s report dated 30.10.2001’)