Nirmala Meena vs State Of Rajasthan

Sunil Beniwal, J

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

“(i) The impugned order of granting sanction dated 27.01.2025 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) It is further prayed that the entire record of prosecution sanction pertaining to petitioner may kindly be ordered to be summoned before this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in the favour of humble petitioner.”

The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.307/2017 dated 02.11.2017 was registered against the petitioner, while she was serving as District Supply Officer, for offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) and Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, in relation to alleged misappropriation of wheat and its additional supply at her instance. 2.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid incident, the department also issued a charge-sheet under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 on similar allegations. However, after conducting a detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recommended her exoneration, holding that none of the charges stood proved against the petitioner.

2.2 Thereafter, another FIR, being FIR No.118/2018, was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 109 of IPC.

2.3 In connection with FIR No.118/2018, the investigating agency filed a negative Final Report on 30.01.2023 before the competent court. However, in respect of FIR No.307/2017, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet without obtaining prosecution sanction.

2.4 The petitioner came to know that the Principal Secretary, D.O.P., and the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, had recommended declining prosecution sanction and forwarded the proposal for approval to the then Chief Minister. The petitioner also submitted a representation seeking disposal of the matter regarding prosecution sanction.

2.5 It has been averred in the writ petition that while, on the one hand, the departmental inquiry officer recommended her exoneration, and on the other hand, the proposal for prosecution sanction had earlier been declined, yet, on the other hand, respondent No.2, without considering the previous denial and without any fresh material on record, proceeded to grant prosecution sanction vide order dated 08.01.2025. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the grant of prosecution sanction, made the following submissions:-

(I) The allegations forming the basis for prosecution sanction were also examined in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which were dropped vide communication dated 23.12.2019. Those proceedings have attained finality, and therefore, there was no justification for granting prosecution sanction by the impugned order.

(ii) The FIR in the present case was lodged in 2017, and the charge-sheet was filed in 2018. The prosecution sanction granted on 27.01.2025, i.e., after nearly seven years from the filing of the charge-sheet, is wholly arbitrary and reflects an unreasonable exercise of power.

(iii) The charge-sheet, based on the entire evidence available on record, was filed in 2018. No fresh material has emerged thereafter to justify the grant of prosecution sanction after an inordinate delay of seven years.

(iv) Another FIR was also registered against the petitioner alleging possession of assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. However, after thorough investigation, a negative Final Report was submitted. This FIR was registered in 2018, subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet in FIR No.307/2017, which clearly indicates that there was no material with the authorities to proceed against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

(v) Earlier, prosecution sanction had been refused, and a note-sheet to this effect was forwarded to the office of the Chief Minister. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to reopen the matter and take a contrary decision granting prosecution sanction, which runs against the earlier decision of denial.

(vi) The prosecution sanction has been granted in a purely mechanical manner, without due application of mind. The submissions made by the petitioner were not considered by the authority while passing the impugned order.

(vii) The charge-sheet was filed in 2018, and considering the material therein, prosecution sanction had earlier been refused. Thereafter, in the absence of any new material, the subsequent decision to grant sanction indicates non-application of mind by the authorities. For this reason as well, the impugned order granting prosecution sanction is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Devkant Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1475/2021, decided on 10.03.2025), wherein the Court considered an identical issue involving refusal of prosecution sanction at an earlier stage and its subsequent grant. It was submitted that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

3.2 Learned  counsel  further  relied  on  the  judgment  of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen [(2010) 14 SCC 527], contending that the power to grant or refuse prosecution sanction, though statutory in nature, must be exercised reasonably. It was emphasized that a mere change of opinion on the same material cannot form the basis for reviving or reconsidering an earlier order declining sanction.

3.3 Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622]. Referring to paragraph 18 of the said judgment, learned counsel submitted that an order granting prosecution sanction must demonstrate that the sanctioning authority had duly considered the material, evidence, and relevant facts placed before it. The order should ex facie disclose application of mind and must not be influenced by any external pressure or extraneous considerations compelling the authority to decide one way or the other.

Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, made the following submissions:-

(i) The scope of interference in the order granting or refusing prosecution sanction is very limited and in support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Ankita Mathur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.162/2024, decided on 21.04.2025] wherein the Division Bench, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra), upheld the prosecution sanction, more particularly on the ground that the scope of judicial review is very limited and the order granting prosecution sanction can be altered only on the ground where the decision making authority exceeds its power and an error of law is committed or there is breach of rules of natural justice or a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or there is abuse of power by the authority. In the present case, none of these contingencies exist nor it is the case of the petitioner that there is violation of above mentioned conditions and, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order.

(ii) It is not the case of the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed by an incompetent authority.

(iii) It is also not the case of the petitioner that there was non-application of mind by the authority while granting prosecution sanction.

(iv) The FIR was lodged against the petitioner detailing out the allegations. A serious allegation of embezzlement has been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner herein, at the relevant point of time, was posted as District Supply Officer, has misused her power and position, embezzled wheat worth crores of rupees. The petitioner was behind the bars for almost a month. Though the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2018, however, the file could not be further processed as the prosecution sanction was awaited. It is only in the year 2022, the Investigating Officer was supplied with the statements of some of the ration dealers and, therefore, the State Government, based on the entire material available on record and after affording due opportunity of hearing, proceeded to grant prosecution sanction and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner.

(v) The departmental inquiry has not attained finality. The Administrative Department has disagreed with the finding of Inquiry Officer and, therefore, a reply was sought from the petitioner vide letter dated 26.04.2022 and that being so, it cannot be said that the departmental proceedings stood concluded.

(vi) The entire case of the petitioner is based on the fact that earlier prosecution sanction was refused and, therefore, the respondents-authorities could not have reversed the decision by passing the impugned order. It is submitted that there was no order ever passed in the present case on prosecution sanction except the impugned order. The allegation of petitioner that earlier prosecution sanction was refused is totally false and baseless. Only a note-sheet was prepared by the Joint Secretary, wherein it was recommended that no case for prosecution sanction is made out against the petitioner, however, that was never accepted by the competent authority. As a matter of fact, later a decision was taken to re-investigate the matter and accordingly the matter was thoroughly examined afresh and considering the earlier material so also the subsequent material, a decision was taken to grant prosecution sanction. That being so, it cannot be said that the authorities have reversed the decision. As a matter of fact, there is only one decision, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(vii) The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) and as a matter of fact, the said judgment rather supports the contention made by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of any finding given in the said judgment. As far as judgment passed in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the earlier decision was taken for not granting prosecution and later, the same was reversed. Similarly, even in the case of Devkant Meena (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition for the reason that earlier prosecution sanction was denied and later the decision was reversed. The above judgments are not applicable in the present case, as in the present case, no formal decision for refusing prosecution sanction was taken. That being so, the judgments as relied by the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It would be first appropriate to deal with the issue as to whether earlier prosecution sanction was refused in the present case or not.

6.1 The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has alleged that the prosecution sanction was earlier denied. While making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the note-sheet, which is available on record at Page No.245 of the paper-book, which is reproduced as under:-

6.2 Based on the above note-sheet, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the noting is made in the file, then for all practical purposes, it should be deemed that the case for grant of prosecution sanction was considered by the authority and the same was denied. Though the noting, as quoted above, is not a final noting, however, the fact is that the same has not been denied by the respondents. The respondents have though not produced the noting, however, submitted in para No.7 of the reply as under:-

“7. That in relation to the averments made in para no. 9 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) presented the challan against the petitioner on 17.07.2018, after concluding, upon investigation, that the allegations against the petitioner, who was then serving as District Supply Officer, Jodhpur, were found to be substantiated. Accordingly, ACB Report No.23/18 dated 10.07.2018 was forwarded to the Department of Personnel for obtaining prosecution sanction. It is submitted that the proposal for prosecution sanction received from the ACB was duly examined, and the file was submitted at the competent level in May 2020. However, while putting the file for perusal/approval of Chief Minister, it was opined by the Joint Secretary vide note sheet dated 07.05.2020 that there is no case for grant of prosecution sanction. It is pertinent to mention here that no formal order, either granting or refusing sanction for prosecution, was issued, and the matter remained under internal deliberation and correspondence. Furthermore, directions were received from the Chief Minister to re-examine the matter and resubmit the file accordingly.”

6.3 A perusal of the note-sheet quoted above so also the submissions made in para No.7 of the reply, this Court is of the opinion that though the noting was recorded recommending for not granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said recommendation was ever accepted by the competent authority. The respondents have subsequently submitted that no formal order refusing grant of prosecution sanction was issued and the noting remained part of internal deliberation and correspondence. 6.4 The petitioner has failed to produce any material evidence to suggest that there was a formal order by the competent authority for refusing to grant of prosecution sanction. That being so, there is no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution sanction was never refused and the only order, which was finally passed, is the order impugned whereby the prosecution sanction was granted against the petitioner.

The petitioner has also contended that for the same set of allegation, a departmental inquiry was initiated and after holding regular inquiry, the same was dropped by the communication dated 23.12.2019. The respondents have specifically denied in para No.4 of their reply wherein it is stated that after examination of the investigation report and the comments of the Administrative Department, a disagreement of the finding of inquiry officer was recorded and accordingly reply was sought by the petitioner.

7.1 Counsel for the petitioner, on being asked about the said letter, was not in a position to comment on it. Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply, however, this fact has not been controverted. That being so, it cannot be said that the finding given in the departmental proceeding has attained finality.

As far as submission made by the petitioner with regard to submission of negative Final Report in the subsequent FIR, which was registered for having inappropriate assets is concerned, the same is for different facts and submission of final negative Final Report could not be, in any manner, made basis of arriving at conclusion that as to whether decision taken for grant of prosecution is justified or not.

The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Devkant Meena (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, there was a formal refusal for grant of prosecution sanction, however, the said decision was reversed and, therefore, in those circumstances, the Court observed that there was no material to reverse the said decision and, consequently, the order granting prosecution sanction was quashed.

As far as the judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen (supra) is concerned, that too is distinguishable on the facts. In that case too, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of interference in the order of prosecution sanction, observed that there has to be proper application of mind. In that case, earlier the prosecution sanction was denied, however, without there being any reason, the decision was reversed and, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to interfere with the impugned order and the order granting prosecution sanction was held to be bad.

As far as the judgment delivered in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas (supra) is concerned, the same has been relied upon by both the parties. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference with the order granting prosecution sanction and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed that the sanctioning authority is required to apply its mind on the basis of the material available before it and observed in para No.18 as under:-

“18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also: Jaswant Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 762 = AIR 1958 SC 12; State of Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991 Cr.L.J. 1438 (SC)).”

11.1 Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is clear that the validity of prosecution sanction would depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and consideration of the relevant facts and evidence by the sanctioning authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered the scope and also the facts, which are to be kept in mind while granting prosecution.

11.2 In view of the discussion made above and considering the judgments, as cited by the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order granting prosecution sanction cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. The sanctioning authority has considered the submissions made by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority granting prosecution sanction was not competent to pass the order impugned. As discussed above, there is no order on record to indicate that earlier the prosecution sanction was refused and, therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to reversal of decision has no force. The submission with regard to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the same set of allegations and the same has attained finality is also not found to be correct in view of the fact that the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and explanation had been sought from the petitioner.

As an upshot, the writ petition filed by the petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.