CWP No.2179 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2179 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2010 **** Rajinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as a Junior Auditor in the office of Deputy Manager, PUNGRAIN at Ferozepur. He seeks quashing of the order dated 15.09.2006 (Annexure P7), whereby, sanction has been accorded for his prosecution in case FIR No.51 dated 16.08.2002 under Sections 409/467/468/471/120-B IPC read with Section 13 (1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered by Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and records perused. CWP No.2179 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that earlier the competent authority took a conscious decision dated 07.03.2006 (Annexure P4), whereby, sanction for prosecution qua the petitioner, was declined. However, the said order has been reversed and subsequently sanction for the prosecution has been accorded vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2006 (Annexure P7) allegedly, in a mechanical manner. (4). On the other hand, the respondents have come up with a stand that there was no final decision refusing the sanction and the material on record does not distinguish the petitioner’s case from his co-suspects. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the matter deserves to be re-considered by the competent authority. However, if it is satisfied that the petitioner also deserves to be prosecuted along with his co- suspects, the competent authority may pass an appropriate order to this effect on or before 07.04.2010. (6). The competent authority shall be entitled to consider the material which existed on record even prior to the passing of the previous order dated CWP No.2179 of 2009.doc - 3 – 07.03.2006, if the same is found to have been overlooked/ignored or misconstrued. The sanction to prosecute, if accorded, shall relate back to the date of the previous order and will cause no effect on the pending criminal proceedings. The competent authority may hear the petitioner in- person before taking any final decision. Suffice it to say that should the sanction for prosecution be declined, the petitioner’s prosecution shall stand invalidated. (7). Let a copy of this order, under the signatures of the Bench Secretary, be handed over to Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, for information and necessary compliance. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti also. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.03.2010 vishal shonkar