P. JYOTHIMANI , J.

1. The appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.01.2010 made in W.P.No.22472 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein, in and by which the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has held that the order of sanction to prosecute the appellant has been made with independent application of mind supported by reasons and charge sheet has already been filed.

2. The appellant has served the respondent/Bank for a period of 33 years under various positions. While he was working as Chief Manager of Indira Nagar Branch, Chennai, in the year 2005, an explanation was called for in respect of some of the commissions and omissions stated to have been committed by him during 2003-2005. At that time, he was working in New Delhi. The appellant has submitted his explanation. Rejecting the said explanation, charges were framed against him and enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Employer/Bank, by an order dated 13.11.2008, has imposed a punishment of reduction in basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. That order of punishment imposed in the departmental proceeding has become final.

3. It appears that after he was transferred from New Delhi Branch, certain complaint has been lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi and the same was registered on 24.12.2007 and in the said complaint, the appellant was cited as one of the accused. After the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed against five persons, but the appellant's name was excluded from the charge sheet. The reason was that the Competent Authority namely, the Employer, has declined sanction of prosecution of the appellant. That refusal was made on 30.12.2008. Again for the second time, sanction was sought to prosecute the appellant and that was also declined on 18.05.2009.

4. Thereafter, it is seen that under the impugned order dated 16.09.2009, the same Authority namely, the Employer, has granted sanction for prosecution against the appellant under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was that sanction order given by the Competent Authority, which was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.22472 of 2009. The challenge was on various grounds including that the Competent Authority having declined the grant of sanction based on the materials available, cannot now grant sanction on the same materials. In other words, it has been the case of the appellant that the Sanctioning Authority has no power of review, unless new materials come to limelight, which were not brought to the notice of the Sanctioning Authority at the time of granting sanction.

5. Further, the point on which the writ petition was filed was that, when once the first order of declining sanction has been passed by the Authority, there is no question of reopening the case once again, especially in the absence of such power available in law. It is the further case of the appellant that even otherwise in passing of the impugned sanction order, there has been no independent application of mind. According to the appellant, the sanction order has been motivated at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation, as directed by the Central Vigilance Commission, and therefore, it has to be treated as not an independent decision, as it has been judicially established that the sanction order has to be granted by the Authority by applying its mind independently and the Authority should not succumb to any pressure from any quarters.

6. It was contended by the respondent/Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Cor