JUDGMENT :

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 Annex. 1, may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside.

Any other relief to which petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

(2) The facts in brief are that a complaint came to be filed by one Shri Rakesh Damore in ACB Outpost Dungarpur against the petitioner, while he was holding the post of Patwari, accusing him that he demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/-on the basis of which, an FIR (Annexure-2) came to be registered against him by ACB on 28.02.2014. While investigation was going on under the said FIR, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector (Land Records) and at present, he is discharging his duties on the post of Additional Office Quanungo.

(3) After the investigation, a decision was taken to file challan against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) and thus, a request was made to the respondent No.2-District Collector, Banswara to grant prosecution sanction.

(4) The respondent No.2-District Collector, Banswara reached to the conclusion that since the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Board of Revenue and referred the same to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, however, sent back the matter to the respondent No.2 to take action on his own level. The petitioner was thereafter accorded opportunity of personal hearing and was directed to remain present before the respondent No.2 on 20.06.2013, on which date, the Investigating Officer was also present. After hearing the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, the respondent No.2 took the decision to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2015 and passed detailed order on 28.01.2015 (Annex.1), which has been passed in utter violation of the provision of Section 19 of the Act of 1988. Hence, this petition.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that from the perusal of order Annex.3, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has promoted the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Land Records) and, therefore, for the purpose of Section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988, the respondent No.3 – Board of Revenue was the competent to grant the prosecution sanction, whereas prosecution sanction has been granted by the District Collector.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the appointment to the post of Inspector (Land Records) is governed by Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’), which reads as under:-

“33. Appointment of Girdawar Qanungos or Land Records Inspectors– Subject to rules made under this Act, the Collector shall appoint to each land records inspection circle, a Girdawar Qanungo or Land Record Inspector for the proper Supervision, maintenance and correction of the annual registers and records under Chapter VII.”

(7) Learned counsel also referred to Rule 171 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1957’) and submitted that the Divisional Commissioner is the is the appointing authority of the Inspector (Land Records) and District Collector has no authority to grant prosecution sanction. Rule 171 of the Rules of 1957 provides as under:-

“171. Appointment. As per procedure laid down in rules 284 and 301 of these rules the Commissioner of the Division shall select candidates for training of Inspector Land Records. The Commissioner of the Division shall maintain a list of those candidates who have received training and obtained. Diploma when there is a substantive vacancy in the cadre of Inspector