I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The genesis of the present writ proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, lies in Aalo Police Station Case No. 5 of 2007, under Section 409 / 120B / 411, IPC, wherein the case of the prosecution briefly stated, was, thus: On 17.1.2007, an information was received from reliable source at Aalo Police Station that one Oil Tanker bearing registration No. AR-08/0401, loaded with HSD oil and meant for General Reserved Engineering Force ('GREF'), Tato, was being diverted to Aalo for disposal/sale of oil at Aalo. On receipt of the information, a police team, headed by Sub-Inspector, R. Yekker, on being entrusted by the Officer in-Charge of the said police station to take necessary action in the matter, traced the vehicle at the compound of Yomgo Automobiles Service ('YAS'), Aalo, on 18.1.2007, at about 5:30 hours. On query made by the police team, it was found that one Jahid Khan, driver of the said tanker, had brought 5400 litres of HSD oil to YAS from GREF, Tato, with the connivance of the GREF officials of Tato, 92 RCC, with intent to sell the same. The said vehicle, having 6,000 litres of HSD oil and with vehicle's documents, were seized and the driver, Jahid Khan, and the handyman, Abu Ali, were arrested. The seized documents also revealed that there were documents, issued by GREF personnel, showing receipt of the said 6,000 litres of HSD oil purporting thereby to have received the said 6,000 litres of HSD oil, though the HSD oil had been diverted, with the connivance personnel of GREF, Tato, to YAS for sale and delivery there. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet, against some of the GREF personnel, namely, K. Ashok, A.T. Singh, Ram Lagan, Rajeev B, C.V. Sivaji, Jahid Khan, Anil Choudhury and Jainath Rai, for their prosecution under Section 409 / 120B, IPC.

2. On coming to learn that the said 6,000 litres of HSD oil had not been decanted, at Dett Tato, by the GREF personnel and had been diverted for sale as aforesaid, some of the GREF personnel were placed under suspension, K. Ashok, Ram Lagan, A.T. Singh (i.e., the present petitioner) and Rajeev B, being some of those who were placed, under suspension, by taking recourse to the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, the order of suspension having been passed, as against the present petitioner, on 30.4.2007. By order, dated 27.7.2009, the petitioner's suspension was extended by another 90 days with immediate effect. Thereafter, an order was made on 24.1.2008, whereby the period of suspension was extended for another 180 days. By yet another order, dated 29.7.2008, the petitioner's suspension was extended until further order, though the period of 180 days, as mentioned in the order, dated 24.1.2008, aforementioned, already stood expired on 22.7.2008.

3. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the charge sheet, submitted by the police, in Aalo Police Station Case No. 5/2007 aforementioned, the accused persons, including the present petitioner, appeared in the case and, at the time of framing of the charges, it was contended, on behalf of those accused persons, who were GREF employees, that their prosecution was without jurisdiction inasmuch as sanction, for their prosecution, was required under Section 197, Cr.PC and, as no sanction had been obtained, in this regard, their prosecution was without jurisdiction and may, therefore, be brought to an end. Accepting the submission, so made, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aalo, West Siang District, passed an order, on 6.6.2007, discharging the accused. The reason for coming to the conclusion that prosecution of the GREF personnel, in the case aforementioned, was not legally permissible was that the accused persons were allegedly entrusted to receive HSD oil by their employers, i.e., Union of India, and while discharging their duties, the accused persons had allegedly misappropriated the HSU oil. Thus, the offence of dishonest misappropriation,