Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40063) on 26 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:40063]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11691/2024
Dinesh Kumar Soni S/o Sh. Amarchand Soni, aged about 58
years, R/o 123, Adinath Nagar, Near Peepli Circle, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Working As Assistant Accounts Officer Grade
I under auspension Presently Headquartered at Treasury, Pali).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Department
of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance, Revenue Department, Jaipur.
3. Director and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, Directorate,
Treasury and Accounts Department, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani with
Mr. Yash Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/09/2024
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Director and
Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, Directorate, Treasury and Accounts
Department (the respondent no.3), whereby prosecution sanction
to proceed against him under Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 was granted.
2. Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the order impugned suffers from lack of application
of mind, inasmuch as, the respondent no.3 has granted
prosecution sanction by order dated 23.11.2022, which is almost
[2024:RJ-JD:40063] (2 of 3) [CW-11691/2024]
identical to the Draft order that was sent by the Deputy Inspector
General of Anti Corruption Bureau alongwith communication dated
23.01.2022.
3. Mr. Kotwani read the draft order available at Page No. 39 and
the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 and highlighted that all the
paragraphs with tick-marks from the draft sanction have been
copied in the prosecution sanction. He added that even concluding
part of the impugned order is exactly the same, as is in the draft
prosecution sanction.
4. To substantiate his argument that the order under challenge
has been passed without application of mind, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Verma vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
268/2019) decided on 28.07.2023.
5. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State was not in a position to dispute the
aforesaid position of fact.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. A simple look at the proposed sanction (dt. 23.11.2022) in
juxtaposition with the impugned order shows that the respondent
no.3 has copied and pasted these paragraphs or has got them
typed as it is. It is surprising to see that even the concluding
paragraph has been copied as was proposed in the draft order.
Such order exposes the lack of application of mind by the State
authorities.
8. This Court has time and again held that the prosecution
sanction order cannot be based on proposed/draft prosecution
[2024:RJ-JD:40063] (3 of 3) [CW-11691/2024]
sanction, which are being sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau and
the competent authority should apply his own mind on the facts
obtaining in each case. The order under challenge does not show
any sort of application of mind by the competent authority.
9. In view of above and while following the judgment rendered
in the case of Satyanarayan Verma (supra), the impugned order
dated 10.01.2023 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
10. The writ petition is allowed.
11. Needless to observe that the competent authority shall be
free to pass fresh order of prosecution sanction in accordance with
law.
12. Stay application stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
418-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
