Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the sanction order for prosecution-order dated 21.4.1994 - the petitioner has challenged the same by way of this writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in 1961, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department. Subsequently, he joined the military transport services. But in December 1966, he came back to the Irrigation Department as an Assistant Engineer. In 1979, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. In 1982, he was posted as a Liason and Procurement Officer in the Rajasthan Canal Project which was later on re-named as Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana. He was posted in Delhi from 1982 to 1987. The petitioner claims that in 1993 he learnt that a FIR was lodged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, at Bikaner, relating to purchase of some material which was made in the year 1984 from M/s. Manju Shri Enterprises, Bikaner. According to the petitioner, he was not named in the FIR. He further claims that with regard to the said purchase, the Lokayukta had conducted an inquiry. In the report of the Lokayukta, dated 2.6.1989, nothing adverse was recorded against him. However, notwithstanding the report of the Lokayukta, vide order dated 21.4.1994, the Sanctioning Authority passed an order for the prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.

3. Mr. R.L. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court: firstly, in the report of the Lokayukta dated 2.6.1989, no finding was given with regard to any illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner. Moreover, according to the reply submitted by the State, the said report was placed before the Sanctioning Authority. However, notwithstanding the said report of the Lokayukta, the Sanctioning Authority has passed the impugned order. Relying upon the case of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 325), the learned counsel has argued that the report of the Lokayukta should not have been brushed aside. In fact, weightage should have been given to the said report. Since the Sanctioning Authority has ignored the report of the Lokayukta, the sanctioning order is unsustainable. Secondly, all the material collected during the investigation was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the sanction order is unsustainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of State of Karnataka vs. Ameer Jan (AIR 2008 SC 108).

4. On the other hand, Mr. Krishan Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has contended that according to order dated 22.9.1984, the Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical), RCP, Bikaner had directed the petitioner to inspect hose pipes purchased from M/s. Manju Shri Enterprises, Bikaner. The said inspection was to be carried out along with Shri Ram Swaroop, Executive Engineer, RCP, Central Stores Division, Bikaner. The said inspection was, indeep, carried out by the petitioner and Mr. Ram Swaroop as is evident from the Inspection Report (Ann. 3). However, subsequently it was discovered that the hose pipes selected by the petitioner and Ram Swaroop did not conform to the established standards. It was also discovered that although the pipes did not conform to the said standards, yet the petitioner, along with Ram Swaroop, had recommended that the pipes be bought. It is only on the basis of their recommendation that the pipes were bought by the Government and amount was paid to M/s. Manju Shri Enterprises, Bikaner.

5. Secondly, a complaint was made to the Lokayukta against four persons only, namely Ram Swaroop Kumawat, S.P. Saxena, M.I. Khilji and A.M. Sharma. Therefore, no complaint was made against the present petitioner. Hence,