JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow-respondent no. 2, whereby sanction has been accorded for prosecution of petitioner in Crime No. 16 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B IPC read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

3. Sri Ojha, learned Senior counsel has submitted that petitioner is first informant of the case and no case is made out against him as major amount alleged in the incident has been released on the forged documents in conspiracy with bank employees by putting forged signatures and even the FIR was lodged by the petitioner. Meanwhile, the amount in question has also been recovered. It was further submitted that earlier an order dated 07/9.05.2014 was passed under Section 197 Cr.P.C. by the Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, whereby sanction was not granted and the review of the same was not permissible under law and, therefore, the impugned order is against law and not sustainable. It was also pointed out that earlier, on wrong advise, petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2019, however, as chargesheet was not submitted by that time, thus, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. It was further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, thus, principles of natural justice have been violated while passing the impugned order.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that earlier the sanction for prosecution was not granted vide order dated 07/09.05.2014 by the competent authority as it was not required, in case, prosecution is launched against a retired employee. However, meanwhile, Prevention of Corruption Act was amended vide Act No. 16 of 2018, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, wherein it has been provided that sanction would not only be required for prosecution of a person who is employed but also against such person who at the time of commission of alleged offence was employed and, thus, the impugned order of sanction was passed by the competent authority. It was further submitted that earlier the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being no. 21720 of 2019 against the impugned order dated 08.01.2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2019.

5. It is not in dispute that at the time of commission of the alleged offences, the petitioner was employed as Incharge, Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari and he retired on 31.01.2014. As per amended provisions of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which came into force on 26.07.2018, previous sanction is necessary for prosecution of a person who at the time of commission of alleged offence was employed. It is apparent from the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by Director, Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh that earlier sanction was not granted as the petitioner has retired and sanction was not required for his prosecution in the alleged case. Later on in view of amendment in law, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in the said case was accorded vide impugned order dated 08.01.2019. In view of these facts, it was permissible for the sanctioning authority to review its order dated 07.05.2014.

6. Recognizing the power of review on the part of sanctioning authority, the Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, 2010 14 SCC 527 held as under:-

"12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean t