ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2021, passed by the Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara granting prosecution sanction for proceeding against the petitioner pursuant to FIR No. 10/2020 that was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988').

2. Narrated briefly, the facts appertain are, that the petitioner was posted as Village Development officer (Gram Vikas Adhikari) in Gram Panchayat Khajuri, District Banswara. An FIR No. 10/2020 came to be registered against the petitioner under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (for short "the Code of 1973") by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Police Station, Banswara under section 7 of the Act of 1988 with the accusation that he had demanded a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant Gautam Singh for clearing his bill for Rs.32,000/-.

3. While, the trap which was laid for catching the petitioner red-handed had failed, the allegation of demanding gratification was supported by a telephone recording.

4. In furtherance of the FIR so lodged, the respondent No. 2 sought prosecution sanction against the petitioner as required under section 19(1) of the Act of 1988.

5. The petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 03.08.2021 sent by the DIG, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Udaipur Range, Udaipur to the Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara which not only makes a reference but also encloses a draft order of prosecution sanction.

6. In response to the request so made, prosecution sanction has been sent by the competent authority i.e., Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara vide communication dated 17.11.2021.

7. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the amendment in the Act of 1988 brought into effect from 26.07.2018, no police officer can conduct any enquiry/investigation in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act of 1988, without prior approval of the competent authority.

8. It is argued that before lodging of the FIR or commencing investigation, it was required of the respondent No. 2 to have taken prior approval of the competent authority as mandated under section 17A of the Act of 1988.

9. It is also argued that the respondent No. 3 has issued prosecution sanction vide its order dated 17.11.2021, without applying his own mind, which is evident from the fact that the draft sanction order which was forwarded by the office of the DIG, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Udaipur Range, Udaipur to respondent No. 3, has been typed verbatim and sent, while simply filling his own name in the blank space of the last para.

10. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG, argued that the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Tribunal.

11. So far as the facts asserted by the petitioner that no prior approval of the State Government has been obtained before the investigation commenced, the reply is silent. Therefore, petitioner's assertion about the absence of prior approval of the competent authority remains undenied and hence admitted.

12. Heard.

13. A perusal of the communication dated 03.08.2011 sent by the office of the Deputy Inspector General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Udaipur Range, Udaipur to the respondent No. 3 clearly reveals that his office had enclosed a draft of the order sanctioning prosecution, while soliciting the prosecution sanction.

14. The fact that the draft order was sent by the office of the DIG, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Udaipur Range, Udaipur has not been disputed by the State.

15. If the draft order sent by the DIG, ACB, Udaipur Range, Udaipur is kept in juxtaposition with the final order of prosecution sanction dated 17.11.2021, there can be no doubt that it is ad-verbatim the same.

16. The respondent No. 3 has simply filled in the blank space with