Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Prasad Vaishnav vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:28928) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:28928]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14387/2016
Rajendra Prasad Vaishnav S/o Shri Mithulal Vaishnav, Presently
Working On The Post Of Patwari At Hurda, District- Bhilwara
Rajasthan The Then Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dabla Chanda,
Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, District- Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue Group-1, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The District Collector, Bhilwara
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, District- Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelam Sharma
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
04/07/2025
1. At the very inception, it is relevant to note that although the
writ petition was filed putting a challenge to letter dated
17.09.2016 (Annex.13) whereby a prosecution sanction was
granted against the petitioner and Order dated 21.09.2016
(Annex.14) whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension,
subsequently the appeal as filed by the petitioner against the
order of suspension was allowed. Order dated 21.09.2016
(Annex.14) was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner vide
order dated 20.07.2018 and the petitioner was reinstated vide
order dated 08.03.2019. Therefore, the present petition now
survives only qua prosecution sanction letter dated 17.09.2016
(Annex.13).
[2025:RJ-JD:28928] (2 of 4) [CW-14387/2016]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13005/2016
(decided on 13.05.2025) submitted that the facts of the present
petition being totally identical to the said matter, the ratio in
Rakesh Kumar Soni's case (supra) would govern the present
matter too.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department is not in a
position to refute the fact that the issue would be governed by the
ratio in the case of Rakesh Kumar Soni (supra).
4. In Rakesh Kumar Soni's case (supra), this Court observed
and held as under:
9. A bare perusal of both the above documents clearly
reveals that there has been no objective satisfaction of the
competent authority about a prima facie case against the
petitioner. The order granting sanction is on the face of it,
a verbatim repetition of the draft document.
10. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012 (decided on
19.12.2012), the Single Bench of this Court while dealing
with a similar situation wherein the prosecution sanction
was a verbatim repetition of the draft prosecution as
furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau, observed and
held as under:
"As already stated, in the instant matter too the
sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction a
read verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology
appears to have adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section
19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to
[2025:RJ-JD:28928] (3 of 4) [CW-14387/2016]
grant sanction for prosecution to the competent
authority, as such, the competent authority is
required to apply its own mind by considering all
relevant facts. The competent authority may avail
assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other
authority can initiate the process of consideration for
grant of sanction and instruct the competent authority
for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the
consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of
fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by
sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution.
The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated
all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution
sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the
Bureau could have(10 of 10)instructed for grant of
prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted
document. The prosecution sanction granted in the
instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology,
Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face
depicts non-application of mind and abdication of the
powers by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same,
therefore, is illegal."
11. Taking into consideration the similar facts of the
present case and applying the ratio of the above judgment
to the present case, this Court is of the clear opinion that
the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution
sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the
sanctioning authority cannot be upheld and the same
deserves to be declared illegal.
12. In view of the discussion made above and in view of
the settled position of law, the present writ petition
deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned
sanction letter/order dated 17.09.2016 as passed by the
Collector, Bhilwara is hereby quashed and set aside.
However, the sanctioning/competent authority shall be at
liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with
[2025:RJ-JD:28928] (4 of 4) [CW-14387/2016]
law for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 if so desired.
5. In view of the above ratio, the present writ petition is also
allowed in the same terms as in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Soni (supra).
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
122-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
