JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Transport Inspector at Mandar District Sirohi in the year 2012 when the ACB Udaipur organized a raid and inspected the office of Tax Collection at Mandar on 13.10.2012 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was having an amount of Rs. 34,500/- in his pocket which was duly explained by the petitioner.

2. It was stated by the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 29,340/- was the tax collected from the various vehicles with due receipts provided to them and the same was to be deposited in the Treasury. The remaining amount of Rs. 5160/- was the amount which he had withdrawn from ATM for his personal use and medical treatment.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ACB Authorities while submitting their investigation report observed the aforesaid facts and noted that no case is prima facie made out against the petitioner. The matter was sent to the Assistant Director (Prosecution) and the concerned Assistant Director (Prosecution) has also agreed with the result of the ACB. However, without there being any new facts coming on record, in an autocratic manner, the ACB Authorities sent the matter for prosecution sanction by sending a draft prosecution sanction order and the concerned Appointing Authority has filled the dotted lines without independent application of mind and without even examining the record and report of the ACB.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also before this Court wherein this Court noticed the aforesaid facts and allowed the petitioner to take up the issue before the ACB Court, if required. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prosecution sanction granted by the Department dated 5.10.2017 is vitiated in law as the same has been issued without independent application of mind which is necessary. It is submitted that the very purpose of issuing prosecution sanction stands negated if the Appointing Authority is required to only fill the dotted lines as per the draft sent by the ACB.

5. Learned Senior counsel has taken this Court to the draft sent by the ACB for prosecution sanction which mentions name of the petitioner and also leaves one blank line for filling up name of the concerned officer, who is to issue the prosecution sanction and thereafter learned Senior Counsel has also taken this Court to the actual prosecution sanction to show the similarity between the two.

6. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the issue related to year 2012 for which prosecution sanction was issued in 2017 in an autocratic manner and without application of mind. He submits that the ACB had itself taken a decision, prima facie, not to initiate the criminal action against the petitioner but to only propose departmental proceedings.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that a circular was issued by the State Government, DOP dated 15.5.2012 wherein it was advised to all the Head of Departments to independently apply mind before granting prosecution sanction.

8. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 (7) SCC 622, in support of his submissions to submit that sanction of prosecution requires independent application of mind and the same cannot be issued by filling the dotted lines. Learned counsel has also relied on judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 590/2010 : Subhash Bhatia & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 10.12.2010 wherein similar observations have been followed by this Court.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the ACB submits that the ACB Authorities had examined the entire case and after having reached to the conclusion that case is made out as against the petitioner, sent the entire documents along with a draft mentioning