1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3017/2008 Praveen Kumar v. The Director, Department of Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Anr. Date of Order :: 12th September, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Dr. P.S.Bhati, for the petitioner. Dr. Pratistha Dave, for the respondents. .... By an order dated 5.9.2007 the Government of Rajasthan granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. As a consequent to grant of sanction for prosecution the petitioner was also placed under suspension by an order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Secretary top the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government. By this petition for writ the orders aforesaid are challenged. The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted as Junior Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Kumbhalgarh in District Rajsamand and during his tenure he made valuation of the work made at nine 2 points those are Balavaton Ki Bhagal, Dasano Ki Bhagal, Panchayat Bhawan, Kishan Chauraha, Primary School, Odwadiya, Rohida Talab, Kheda Devi and Ashapura Mataji. The respondents held the petitioner prima facie responsible for causing loss to the public exchequer by making valuation higher than the exact value of the work done. As per the petitioner the respondents have determined value of the work done on basis of the basic schedule rates existing prior to 1.9.1998 whereas the entire work was done subsequent thereto and as such the valuation was required to be made on basis of the rates prescribed after 1.9.1998. The issue regarding determination of the value of the work done by the petitioner within his tenure at Kumbhalgarh Panchayat Samiti as Junior Engineer was also adjudicated by this Court in an another writ petition preferred by him i.e. SBCivil Writ Petition No.3139/2007, Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 21.4.2008. In that writ petition too after considering the entire material, it was found that the respondents should have examined the issue regarding applicability of the basic schedule rates before granting sanction for prosecution. In the instant matter also it is the position admitted that the respondents have not examined the issue regarding applicability of the relevant basic schedule rates. 3 Hence, this petition for writ is also disposed of in the terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar (supra) by quashing the sanction granted under the order dated 5.9.2007 and the matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider the issue regarding grant of sanction by keeping in mind the amendment introduced in basic schedule rates w.e.f. 1.9.1998. The respondents shall make reconsideration regarding grant of prosecution expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from today. In the event of failure to take any decision regarding grant of sanction for prosecution within the period referred above, suspension of the petitioner made under the order impugned dated 24.12.2007 shall stand revoked. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.