JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. — Bereft of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant, a member of the Orissa Administrative Service, at the relevant time was serving as a Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Irrigation Department. The officers of the Vigilance Department searched his house after obtaining a search warrant from the Court, on 17th March, 1992.

It led to registration of a first information report against the appellant. During the investigation, it was found that the appellant possessed disproportionate assets of Rs.5,58,752.40. As the appellant was removable from service by the State Government, the Vigilance Department sought its sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The State Government by its letter dated 13th May, 1997, declined to grant sanction and advised that the proposal for prosecuting the appellant be dropped. The appellant superannuated from service on 30th June, 1997. It seems that even after the retirement of the appellant, the Vigilance Department wrote on 25th of March, 1998 for reconsideration of the earlier order refusing the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The State Governme