SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2363

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, J.
Hanuman Singh Vishnoi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3628 of 2007.
Decided On : 14-10-2009

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:C.S. Kotwani, Advocate.
For the Party:G R. Punia, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents:L.K. Purohit, Advocate.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – S. 19 & 13(1)(d) Prosecution sanction – No case could be established against the petitioner was the finality by the competent authority which applied their mind appropriately – No sanction for prosecution was given according to the authority – Involuntary sanction was given for prosecution by the Competent authority – To give sanction the competent authority did not apply the mind independently – the general instruction given by the department of Home affairs was followed by the competent authority – It was held sanction was not legal – held to be rejected – appeal rejected

JUDGMENT

1. - The Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project-cum-Establishment (Non-Gazetted), Department of Water Resources, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, while exercising powers under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"), granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for various offences punishable under the Act of 1988. The petitioner was also placed under suspension as per Rule 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958") by an order dated 30.5.2007. To assail validity of the orders aforesaid this petition for writ was presented before this Court on 11.6.2007, but the suspension has already been revoked on 29.8.2007 and as such now challenge survives only to the extent of approval for prosecution.

2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed, as per the original record available, is that the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer at Munda-II submitted a complaint to the competent authority regarding an encroachment made by Shri Satpal son of Shri Madanlal upon the area closed to Masitawali Head Chak-1, NDR Canal. On 8.12.2005, above named Shri Satpal made a complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh stating therein that the petitioner is demanding illegal gratification for not removing the encroachment made by him and on basis of the complaint aforesaid a trap was planned and organised on 8.12.2005, accordingly at about 4:30 p.m. on the same day Shri Satpal offered a sum of Rs.2000/- to a person namely Sitaram said to be a person to whom money was to be given under instructions of the petitioner and he accepted the same. The trap party conducted usual proceedings and lodged a criminal case against the petitioner. After the incident of trap office of the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project-cum-Establishment (Non-Gazetted) initiated proceedings for grant of sanction for prosecution as per Section 19 of the Act of 1988. The office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner remitted relevant record to the Chief Engineer to consider the issue relating to grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3(7), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC. A proposed draft sanction was also sent to the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project-cum-Establishment (Non-Gazetted).

3. The Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project-cum-Establishment (Non-Gazetted) by a notice to show cause instructed the petitioner as to why the sanction as sought for be not granted. An opportunity of personal hearing too was allowed and the petitioner was instructed to appear before the competent authority for personal hearing on 6.7.2006. The competent authority after hearing the petitioner and also officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau reached at the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner and as such decided not to grant sanction for prosecution. While doing so the entire record was forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner as per Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-III) Circular dated 30.5.2001. On 15.9.2006 the matter was placed before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources, who made a note "examine and put up". The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, examined the matter and made a note as under:-

"I have gone through the file. Both the parties - ACB officers and the JEn. Sh. Vishnoi - are giving contradicting facts, therefore, in my view both of them should be called personally to present their case before the Secretary WR."

4. The Secretary, Water Resources on 3.10.2006 made a note that "appointing authority for J.En. is C.E. Prosecution sanction is issued by appointing authority. This matter should not come to State Government". After the noting as above the matter was again placed before the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project-cum-Establishment (Non-Gaz







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top