THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17569 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Superintendent, in the oﬃce of Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein. Allegations were made against him, of forging the signature of the superior oﬃcers and issuing orders of promotion, unauthorisedly. Having regard to the gravity of the matter, the Government issued memo, dated 16.12.2000, entrusting the investigation to CB CID. However, about 6 years later, the Principal Secretary to Government in Panchayat Raj Department, the 1st respondent herein, had issued memo, dated 16.9.2006, withdrawing the entrustment, and directing that the matter be enquired by the Commissioner of Inquiries. At various stages, the matter was investigated and certain developments have taken place. Criminal case was registered, against the petitioner, under Sections 466, 468, 420 and 201 of the IPC, read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act (for short “the Act”). Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued memo, dated 13.6.2008, requesting the 2nd respondent to issue orders, according permission to prosecute the petitioner by CID. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated2.7.2008, according permission for prosecution. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at one stage, the respondents have entrusted the matter to CBCID, for investigation against the petitioner, and after a detailed consideration, the permission was withdrawn. He contends that the respondents have considered and reopened the matter, without even indicating as to how the earlier withdrawal from the CBCID is improper or illegal. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is put to serious hardship, on account of the change of stand by the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that there is no conﬂict or change of stand in the proceedings. According to him, while the earlier entrustment and withdrawal was in relation to CBCID, the present entrustment is to CID, that too, in view of several developments. He contends that the petitioner cannot be said to have derived any right, on account of the earlier withdrawal. Certain allegations of serious nature were made against the petitioner. Even while the departmental proceedings are initiated, the matter was entrusted to CBCID on criminal side, under various provisions of IPC and the Act. At one stage, it was felt that the enquiry be undertaken by only one agency viz. Commissioner of Inquiries. It was in this context, that the prosecution was withdrawn from the CBCID. However, with the progress of the matter, the petitioner was arrested and certain confessional statements are said to have come into existence. After taking the various developments into account, the respondents have decided that the prosecution of the petitioner be proceeded with, and that the matter be entrusted to CID. The petitioner is not able to point out violation of any statutory provisions. It is prerogative and some times the duty, of the State, to conduct prosecution of the crimes that come to its notice. The petitioner cannot insist, either that he must not be prosecuted at all, or that the prosecution shall be by a particular agency, unless he points out infraction of any provision of law. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 17th October 2008 PAN