The competent authority, having refused to accord sanction, could not review and grant sanction on the same material. The delay in prosecution after the completion of the investigation was considered a ground to grant relief to the petitioners.

Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- It is proposed to dispose of these three writ petitions by this judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions.

2. Facts as they emerge out of the pleadings of the parties are, that on the basis of the investigation in FIR No. 1 of 1989 of Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Solan, another FIR No. 16 of 90 was registered on 21-11-1990 at Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Shimla, Copy of this FIR is attached as Annexure P1 with the writ petition.

3. During the course of proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition No. 11/92, when the matter came up before this Court on 13-4-1993 regarding investigation of FIR No. 16/90, what was stated on behalf of the Respondent-State was as under : "Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed before us letter No. VIG(ENF) F-6(3)-51/92, dated April 8, 1993 from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home and Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In this communication, it has been decided relating to FIR No. 16 of 1990 that the investigation in this case is complete and the Government has come to the comclusion that there is no involvement of the petitioner................" Thus it is evident that on 8-4-1993 investigation in FIR No. 16 of 90 was complete. What is the relevance of this date will be dealt with hereinafter.

4. In FIR Annexure P1 offences alleged are under Ss. 420, 120-B of the IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the prosecution of the public servant, as per provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction to prosecute such employees is required to be obtained from the appointing authority.

5. Since all the three petitioners in these cases are the employees of Respondent No. 2 Board, the matter was taken up with the said Board by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of H. P. who had forwarded the two challans A and B along with relevant documents.

6. All this material was put up before the competent authority for according sanction against the officers of the Board. This was declined vide communication Annexure P3 dated 10-11-2000. Stand as contained in this P3 was reiterated by the Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Board), till the taking of impugned decision (Annexure P8), which resulted in issuing the impugned sanction Annexure R2/A. Contents of Annexure P3 are as under : "Subject : Case FIR No. 16/90 dated 29-11-90 against S/Sh. Kailash Chand Mahajan, the then Chairman and others. Please refer to your office letter No. 865 dated 21-7-2000 on the subject cited above. It is to inform you that two challans A and B supplied by the Comm.-cum-Secy. (Vigilance) to the Govt. of H. P. along with relevant documents were placed before the competent authority for according prosecution sanction against the officers of the Board. The competent authority has observed that the processing of the tenders for purchase of any major item is done by the office of the Chief Purchase Officer. The proposal is then thoroughly examined in the F and A Wing of the Board and thereafter put up for approval of Store Purchase Committee which consists of all the whole Time Members of the Board and the decision is finally taken by the Store Purchase Committee as a composite body. The entire facts reveal that the entire procedural process was meticulously followed and it ensured that the financial interests of the Board were completely guarded. The competent authority was therefore of the view that there was no mala fides and decided to decline the prosecution sanction in both the cases. Therefore in view of refusal of competent authority to accord prosecution sanction, the challans A and B along with relevant documents as received vide your office letter referred to above are returned herewith."

7. When again Additional Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had asked the Board to accord sanction. As already noted contents of Annexu