Kailash Chand Sharma and Others vs State of Raj. and Others

Instant intra-court appeal (SAW-285/2013) has been filed by five appellants assailing sanction for prosecution granted by the appointing authority, which came to be affirmed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing their writ petition under order impugned dt. 20.12.2012.

Against all the five appellants, FIR for offence u/Ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act & Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 & 120-B IPC was registered and obviously after investigation was conducted, at the stage of filing charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer submitted application to the appointing authority for grant of prosecution sanction and that initially came to be granted vide order dt. 13.01.2009 and followed vide order dt. 15.02.2012. It has been informed to this Court that earlier sanction for prosecution was granted in respect of the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and by subsequent order the sanction for prosecution was granted in reference to the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and on account of sanction for prosecution being granted, for filing charge-sheet against the appellants decision was taken by the authority for placing them under suspension vide order dt. 12.10.2012 on account of criminal case being registered against them by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur.

However, before we may examine the dispute which the appellants have raised in the instant proceedings we would like to refer the narration of the cases after cases being filed in this Court either in respect of order of suspension or prosecution sanction at different point of time. The appellant Kailash Chand Sharma filed a writ petition bearing no. 19750/2012 on 23.11.2012 against order of suspension dt. 12.10.2012 but that came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dt. 14.12.2012 with direction to make representation and at the same time the second appellant Jeevan Singh also filed a separate writ petition bearing no. 19299/2012 on 23.11.2012 assailing order of suspension passed in his case dt. 12.10.2012 and that a so came to be disposed of granting liberty of making representation vide order dt. 13.12.2012. As regards the representation which the appellants submitted against the order of suspension impugned before the learned Single Judge, that also came to be rejected by the competent authority on 22.01.2013 and that was assailed by the appellants by filing writ petition bearing No. 6537/2013 (tagged herewith), at the same time a separate writ petition was filed assailing order granting sanction for prosecution which came to be registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20693/2012 and that was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under order impugned dt. 20.12.2012 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant intra-court appeal.

On the last date of hearing when the matter came up before the Court, we put a question to the counsel as to why the petitions after petitions are being filed against order of granting sanction for prosecution in reference to the FIR registered against the appellants under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and that was very specifically indicated by the authority while placing under suspension in the order itself and the matter was posted for today only to seek explanation from the counsel in filing of the writ petitions in serious.

We have heard counsel Sh. Vijay Pathak Adv., in person who filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for which he was unable to submit his explanation and after hearing him for quite sometime the explanation submitted to justify in taking decision of filing successive writ petitions but justification tendered is not acceptable to us, the counsel tendered unconditional apology that he will be careful in future, taking note thereof we would not like to proceed any further in the facts of the instant case but as a matter of caution we request the learned Members of the Bar that being officer of the Court it is expected that litigant must be extended the best legal advice for his cause for which he comes & approach to the Court of law and this responsibility is always to be shared by the lawyers on their shoulders which is a minimal expected by us from them.

As regards the present appeal is concerned, Sh. Akhil Simlote Adv., submits that there are numerous errors in the decision making process adopted by the appointing authority while granting sanction for prosecution but the learned Single Judge failed to consider & appreciate on merits and that being the basis for taking decision under order impugned their rights have been seriously jeopardized.

The learned Single Judged in its order impugned dt. 20.12.2012 has not recorded any finding as to whether there was any error in the decision making process which the appointing authority adopted in granting sanction for prosecution, at the same time it was observed that it is always open for the appellant to address the competent court of jurisdiction on merits at the appropriate stage obviously as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.

We do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge while passing order impugned which may require interference by this Court.

Consequently, the special appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

The writ petition filed by the appellants bearing no. 6537/2013 (tagged herewith), Sh. Vijay Pathak Adv. who is also present in Court on instructions wants to withdraw the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition no. 6537/2013 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Copy of this order be placed in respective file.