The court established that the initiation of proceedings and the requirement of previous approval under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were valid and legal in the case at hand.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 7th respondent vide proceeding No.PE.No.11/ 2020 /RDP/ TR, dated 09.03.2020 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits.

1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking orders to call for the records in proceeding No.PE.No.11/ 2020 /RDP/ TR, dated 09.03.2020, on the file of the 7th respondent and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Director in Rural Development Department, Trichy District. According to the petitioner, there existed property dispute between him and his brother/9th respondent herein and that the 8th respondent, on the instigation of his friend 9th respondent, had filed numerous complaints against him to various authorities. The 8th respondent has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.30288 of 2019 before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for directing the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai, to take further action on the basis of the complaint, dated 15.07.2019 given by the 8th respondent herein and that this Court, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has passed an order, dismissing the criminal original petition with a direction to the 8th respondent to appear before the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and to lodge a detailed complaint along with relevant documents.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the orders of this Court, 8th respondent has filed a detailed complaint before the 4th respondent, who in turn, directed the District Collector, Trichy/5th respondent herein to conduct enquiry, who in turn appointed a Joint Director of Rural Development/ Mahalir Thittam, Trichy as Enquiry Officer, that the Enquiry Officer has issued a notice, dated 07.02.2020, and called for the entire service particulars and property statements of the petitioner, that he conducted enquiry and inspected the petitioner's village and that the enquiry was in final stage at the time of filing the above writ petition.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that when the above enquiry is about to attain finality, to the petitioner's shock and surprise, the 7th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 09.03.2020, directing the petitioner to furnish the various particulars called for therein and that the said impugned proceeding is now under challenge.

5. The petitioner has raised two main grounds to sustain the above petition.

(i) During enquiry in Crl.O.P(MD)No.30288 of 2019, it was represented on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the complaint received by them was forwarded to the 4th respondent and that only after receiving the report from the 4th respondent, further action will be taken. Thereafter only, this Court has passed an order, directing the 8th respondent to give a detailed complaint to the 4th respondent, that accordingly, a detailed complaint was given to the 4th respondent, who in turn directed the 5th respondent to conduct enquiry, who in turn appointed an Enquiry Officer and that when the enquiry was about to attain finality, the 7th respondent has commenced preliminary enquiry and issued the impugned proceedings, which is very much against the order of this Court and that the initiation of de-nova enquiry and that too 20 days prior to the petitioner's superannuation is arbitrary and is not permissible and is very much against the order of this Court.

(ii) As per Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, the police officer has to get previous approval to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation, that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing had not obtained any previous approval from the Government to conduct any enquiry against the petitioner herein and that therefore, very initiation of enquiry proceedings is void.

6. The defence of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing is that as per the order of this Court in Crl.O