The power to grant sanction for prosecution vests in the authority empowered to remove the Government servant from service and should be exercised only by such authority. The Minister cannot interfere in the decision of the competent authority and direct the issuance of a prosecution sanction, especially when the competent authority has already declined to grant permission to prosecute on two earlier occasions.

1. - The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 23.5.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1231/2012 dismissing the writ petition filed seeking to quash an order dated 19.1.2012 granting sanction to prosecute the appellant-petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 26.2.1977 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the year 1999. While posted at District Industries Centre, Nagaur, the appellant was trapped and caught red handed with Rs.5,000/- on 4.11.2009. Pursuant to the trap, an FIR No. 292/2009 was lodged on 6.11.2009. The appellant was taken in custody by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Industrial Department, Jaipur passed suspension order on 5.11.2009 by which the services of the appellant were suspended. The appellant thereafter made a representation on 28.9.2010 to the respondent-authorities requesting them that he may be given an opportunity of personal hearing before issuance of any sanction order to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). In the representation, the appellant took all possible defences as to how he has been wrongly implicated in the case. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur at the same time addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Industrial Department at Jaipur on 8.3.2011 requesting the Commissioner to issue the prosecution sanction order while referring to certain circulars. While forwarding the request for grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant, the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police also enclosed format of the prosecution sanction to be signed and issued by the Commissioner Respondent no.2. The Commissioner opined that there was no need to issue prosecution sanction against the appellant on the note-sheet dated 30.5.2011. In response to letter received from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner sent a letter dated 31.5.2011 whereby he stated that he had carefully examined the matter in question and was of the view that the prosecution sanction against the appellant was not required. Thereafter, Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau addressed a letter dated 8.6.2011 to the respondent-State requesting that the matter should be carefully examined along with the evidence available and appropriate decision may be passed. Thereafter, a reminder was sent. On request of the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, the Commissioner, Department of Industries again re-examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the prosecution sanction against the appellant is not needed to be issued. On the matter being put up again the Minister, Department of Industries directed that order be issued to prosecute. On 19.1.2012 the sanction to prosecute was issued by the Commissioner. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition in this High Court challenging the sanction to prosecute granted primarily on the ground that once the prosecution sanction has been refused by the competent authority, the same cannot be re-opened without there being fresh material on record.

3. The learned Single Judge framed a question in the writ petition that "whether any estoppel or res judicata applies for a competent authority, if he once decides not to grant such sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and later on grants it on a consideration of the same material or at the instance of a higher authority?" Relying upon various judgments, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against this, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenu Purohit, Advocate has contended that the Commissioner had examined the matter in detail twice and had come