IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the need for the sanctioning authority to consider all relevant facts and materials before granting prosecution sanction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.06.2023 as contained in Annexure No.8 to this writ petition and declare the petitioner entitled to all consequential service benefits.

(ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice along with the cost of this writ petition."

3. Such relief has been sought on the grounds (as mentioned in the writ petition) that the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 has been passed in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and ignoring the fact that the petitioner has not committed any criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (b) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1988).

4. It has also been stated that initially a Departmental Inquiry was held against the petitioner on the basis of Charge-sheet dated 14.09.2021 wherein a similar charge was framed regarding expenditure of 124% more than his actual income, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.2 to the petition. The allegation was that during the check period with effect from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011, the petitioner’s expenditure on himself and his family members and dependents and also acquisition of immovable and Movable property worth more than his known sources of income i.e. his income from all sources was Rs.42,92,116/- whereas he had spent Rs.96,38,455/-.

5. In pursuance of the Charge-sheet, the petitioner had submitted his reply which was considered by the Inquiry Officer who exonerated him from the said charge. The Enquiry Report dated 11.11.2021 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer had found that during check period (with effect from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011) the petitioner earned a total of Rs.35,20,785/- whereas his wife was making Stuffed Toys and Garments and doing Share Trading and had also sold off Gold jewellery and taken a loan of Rs.10 lacs and her income during the check period was Rs.65,69,613/- and therefore his total income was more than what he had spent. The Managing Director had accepted such report on 06.06.2023 and concluded the Disciplinary Proceedings on 16.06.2023. However, on the very next day i.e. on 07.06.2023, the Opposite party no.2 again passed an order instituting a fresh inquiry on the same charge and evidence. The Charge-sheet was issued to him on 16.06.2023 containing only one charge. The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.06.2023 and Charge-sheet dated 16.06.2023 in Writ-A No.6261 of 2023 [Rakesh Babu Vs. the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and another], in which this Court granted interim protection to him on 24.08.2023 and stayed further proceedings in pursuance of impugned orders. Not being satisfied, the respondent No.2 has also passed an order on 26.06.2023 giving Prosecution Sanction under Section 197 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a matter identical to the subject matter of the Charge-sheet dated 14.09.2021 and 16.06.2023.

6. In the order dated 26.06.2023 a reference has been made to letters of the State Government dated 20.06.2023 and 26.05.2023, on the basis of Investigation Report No.A-143 of 2021 where the Vigilance Department had prima facie found evidence of commission of offence under Section 13 (1) (b) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. It has been stated in the writ petition that in the case of Romesh Lal Jain Vs. Naginder Singh Rana and others reported in 2006 (1) SCC 294, the Supreme Court has held that Sanctioning Authority has to take a decision as per the opinion of the Law Department but the order dated 26.06.2