Passing of an administrative order in exercise of its statutory authority under the specific statute would be distinct from its administrative or executive authority.

J.S.Narang, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 30, 2004, copy Annexure P3, vide which the sanction to prosecute the petitioner has been granted which had been earlier refused.

2. The brief facts which need to be noticed are that the petitioner was appointed as a Block Development and Panchayat Officer on June 27, 1985. He was further promoted as District Development and Panchayat Officer in the year 1996. It has been averred that throughout his career of 20 years, no complaint had ever been made against the petitioner and that the work and conduct of the petitioner has always been found to be good.

3. In the year 2001, when the petitioner was posted as District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ferozepur, a case had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On September 6, 2001, pursuant to a complaint made by one of the Members of the Panchayat Shri Hans Raj, the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau and was subsequently released on bail by an order passed by the Special Court, Ferozepur. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the higher authorities vis-a-vis the allegations levelled against him at the instance of the complainant. He also placed on record the documentary evidence as also the material irregularities committed at the relevant quarters. A thorough investigation was carried out and certain clarifications were asked for from the Vigilance Bureau in regard to the case initiated against the petitioner. Finally, the inquiry report was submitted in favour of the petitioner

4. In the meanwhile, the Vigilance Bureau had moved the department for seeking necessary sanction for prosecuting the petitioner as required under Section 19 of the Act. The matter was taken up with the concerned quarters and that the petitioner had again submitted detailed submissions in writing and the authorities came to a finding that the petitioner was absolutely innocent and that there were grave lacunae in the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department. Upon consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances spelt out from the record as also the written submissions made by the petitioner, a detailed order dated 15.12.2003, had been passed by the Special Secretary Government of Punjab Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, copy Annexure P2. The relevant excerpt from the afore-stated reads as under:

"3. After minutely going through the averments made in the representation submitted by the said officer the Honble Minister issued order for submitting the file. After scrutinizing the file by the Honble Minister it was found that the Vigilance Department has been unable to provide the clarification with regard to certain points as asked by the Panchayat Department from the Vigilance Department from which it is clear that they did not want to submit the clarification and want the true facts remain hidden and not come to the fore. Therefore, in this situation the sanction to prosecute Sh. Bhatti by the Vigilance Department is refused.

The record sent along with the reference letter by the Vigilance Department is returned in original.

Encl :

1. Letter for prosecution sanction 2 pages.

Sd/- Special Secretary

2. Police File 1-54

Government of Punjab

3. Challan File 1-57

Village Development and Panchayat

4. Checking Memo 4 pages photostat Department".

It was in August 2004, with the reshuffle in the cabinet the Vigilance Bureau submitted a representation to the Secretary for reviewing the earlier order dated December 15, 2003. The Secretary granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It is believed that without recording any reasons the file was sent to the concerned quarters and that without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the earlier order was reviewed and the sanction for