Judgment · High Court · 2008

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner/s. Dr. Pratistha Dave, for the respondents. ... To challenge the order dated 16.4.2007 granting sanction for prosecution for the offences under Section 13(1(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 407, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the IPC this petition for writ is preferred. Challenge is also given to the order dated

24.4.2007 placing the petitioner under suspension as a consequent to the grant of sanction for prosecution as per the order dated 16.4.2007. The noticeable facts of the case are that the petitioner in the capacity of Junior Engineer, Panchayat Samiti- Kumbhalgarh was executing the work of Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala under Drought Relief Scheme. A final expenditure bill for the sum of Rs.2,24,725/- was submitted by the petitioner, however, on investigation a claim of Rs. 36, 524/- in excess was found, thus, a case for the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged. By the order impugned the 2 Government of Rajasthan granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in the case aforesaid. The argument advanced to challenge the sanction granted is that no amount in excess was ever claimed by the petitioner as the computation of expenses was made on basis of the Basic Schedule Rates those were amended on 1.9.1998, and the investigating agency made computation on basis of the Basic Schedule Rates applicable prior to

1.9.1998. In para 7 of the writ petition it is averred that, “the whole evaluation had been done at the rates of 1997 prescribed under the Basic Schedule of Rates (BSR), which is the authentic valuation mode, by the respondents. However, it was further made clear that on

1.9.1998 the BSR was amended and therefore the amended BSR had to be considered while application for valuation.” The fact referred above is admitted by the respondents in reply to the writ petition. From perusal of the order impugned also it appears that the respondents have not taken into consideration the amended Basic Schedule Rates. It is very much possible that the difference of the amount of Rs.36,524/- may be due to amended Basic Schedule Rates. Relevant to note here that the work was executed in the year 1999-2000 and during that period the Basic Schedule Rates made effective from

1.9.1998 were applicable. 3 In view of it, whatever stated above I consider it appropriate to quash the sanction granted under the order dated 16.4.2008 and to remit the matter to State Government to reconsider the issue regarding the 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 regrading the grant of sanction for prosecution within the period referred above, suspension of the petitioner made under order dated 24.4.2007 shall stand revoked. The petition for writ stands disposed of accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal