IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1822-24 of 2009 in CWP No.17368 of 2008 Date of decision: February 3, 2009 Dharamvir Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) CM No.1823 of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Certified copy of the Annexure P-12 to P-16 and replication is taken on record. CWP No.17368 of 2008 In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.06.2008 whereby earlier order dated 31.03.2008 disallowing prosecution sanction under Section 7/13 PC Act has been reviewed and withdrawn and by this order such sanction has been accorded. By the 1st order dated 31.03.2008 the competent authority mentioned as follows: “The contractor (i.e. Complainant) has executed the construction of the water course as per revised CWP No.17368 of 2008 -2- L-section. The work executed by the agency works to Rs.32,07,170/- and the payments of Rs.32,02,512/- has already been made to the agency and the balance payment of Rs.4,667/- was only to be made to the agency. And whereas, in view of above facts there does not appear sufficient jurisdiction for demand of Rs.1,500/- by the JE to release the balance amount of Rs.4,667/- only as alleged by the agency and thus, there does not appear enough ground for the prosecution of official.” However, while passing subsequent order dated 13.06.2008, these findings have not been displaced. The stand taken in the written statement was that the second order was passed on a perusal of the complete file which is as follows: “That the contents of this para are admitted being matter of record. However, it is submitted that the previous order dated 25.03.2008 vide which sanction for prosecution of the petitioner declined was subsequently reviewed in the light of documentary evidence i.e. Challan papers, police file and other relevant documents relating to the FIR and coupled with the fact that the petitioner was apprehended red- handed by State Vigilance Bureau, it was observed that prima facie a case of receiving illegal gratification is made out against the petitioner and therefore, the said order dated 25.03.2008 was reviewed and withdrawn and the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was rightly accorded vide order dated 13.06.2008.” A perusal of this averment suggests that at the time of CWP No.17368 of 2008 -3- passing original order, the necessary documents were not before the competent authority. However, the petitioner has filed replication whereby he has placed on record the Annexure P-12 which was forwarding letter to the General Manager, Irrigation Deptt., Haryana dated 21.09.2007 which was application for sanction of prosecution made by the Superintendent of Police Vigilance. In this application, it is clearly mentioned that police file and judicial file are sent for perusal. Thus, it is clear that no fresh material was considered by the competent authority. In Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti versus State of Punjab reported as 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 430, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “Once the government passes the order under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the concerned official reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already stood considered would not be appropriate or permissible. The government is expected to act consciously and cautiously while taking such serious decisions. The perusal of the record shows that pointed queries had been raised to be answered by the Vigilance Bureau but no answer was forth-coming nor any had been submitted subsequently which culminated into passing of the later order dated 30.09. 2004. We refrain ourselves from mentioning the queries which had been raised but it would suffice to say that the queries were never answered at the relevant time when the order dated 15.12.2003, CWP No.17368 of 2008 -4- had been passed nor the same were ever commented upon as no answers were placed before the competent authority for passing the impugned order dated 30.09.2004. The government cannot act in a manner which may cause harassment to an employee or any person. Though the orders required to be passed while exercising the powers under Section 19 of the Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be termed as quasi judicial order, yet the orders have to be passed consciously and cautiously by applying the mind accordingly. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner whereas the previous order had been passed after due deliberations and when the Vigilance Bureau was unable to give answers to the queries raised, the sanction had been declined. We have no reason to accept the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the subsequent order i.e. Order dated 30.09.2004, was passed by due deliberations and upon the basis of the new facts disclosed or by way of applying mind of holding that the present impugned order is in suppression of the previous order.” In view of this authoritative pronouncement of law, there can be no escape from the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the review order has not been justified. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 13.06.2008 is set aside. No costs. February 03, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE