{"id":213733,"date":"2009-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-25T17:25:57","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T11:55:57","slug":"hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                          JODHPUR.\n\n\n                              O R D E R\n\n\n\nHanuman Singh Vishnoi           v.       State of Rajasthan & Ors.\n\n\n\n             S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3628\/2007\n             under Article 226 of the Constitution\n             of India.\n\n\n\nDate of Order                   ::                14th October, 2009\n\n\n\n                            P R E S E N T\n\n\n              HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR\n\n\nMr. CS Kotwani, for the petitioner.\nMr. GR Punia, Additional Advocate General.\nMr. LK Purohit, for the respondents.\n\n                                 ....\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
             The    Chief    Engineer,       Bisalpur      Project-cum-<\/p>\n
Establishment       (Non-Gazetted),          Department      of    Water<\/p>\n
Resources,     Government       of       Rajasthan,      Jaipur,   while<\/p>\n
exercising powers under Section 19 of the Prevention<\/p>\n
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
“the Act of 1988”), granted sanction to prosecute the<\/p>\n
petitioner for various offences punishable under the<\/p>\n
Act    of   1988.   The     petitioner      was   also    placed   under<\/p>\n
suspension as per Rule 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Civil
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Services     (Classification,                 Control   &     Appeal)   Rules,<\/p>\n
1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”)<\/p>\n
by an order dated 30.5.2007. To assail validity of the<\/p>\n
orders aforesaid this petition for writ was presented<\/p>\n
before this Court on 11.6.2007, but the suspension has<\/p>\n
already     been       revoked    on      29.8.2007      and     as   such   now<\/p>\n
challenge survives only to the extent of approval for<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The factual matrix necessary to be noticed,<\/p>\n
as   per   the     original       record        available,       is   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner while working as Junior Engineer at Munda-<\/p>\n
II submitted a complaint to the competent authority<\/p>\n
regarding an encroachment made by Shri Satpal son of<\/p>\n
Shri Madanlal upon the area closed to Masitawali Head<\/p>\n
Chak-1,     NDR    Canal.        On    8.12.2005,        above    named      Shri<\/p>\n
Satpal     made    a    complaint         to    Anti    Corruption      Bureau,<\/p>\n
Hanumangarh        stating       therein        that    the    petitioner     is<\/p>\n
demanding illegal gratification for not removing the<\/p>\n
encroachment made by him and on basis of the complaint<\/p>\n
aforesaid     a        trap    was        planned       and    organised      on<\/p>\n
8.12.2005, accordingly at about 4:30 p.m. on the same<\/p>\n
day Shri Satpal offered a sum of Rs.2000\/- to a person<\/p>\n
namely Sitaram said to be a person to whom money was<\/p>\n
to be given under instructions of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
he accepted the same. The trap party conducted usual<\/p>\n
proceedings       and    lodged       a    criminal      case    against     the<\/p>\n
petitioner. After the incident of trap office of the<\/p>\n
Chief      Engineer,          Bisalpur          Project-cum-Establishment
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
(Non-Gazetted)           initiated        proceedings            for       grant       of<\/p>\n
sanction for prosecution as per Section 19 of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1988. The office of the Superintendent of Police,<\/p>\n
Anti     Corruption          Bureau,      Bikaner          remitted            relevant<\/p>\n
record to the Chief Engineer to consider the issue<\/p>\n
relating to grant of sanction for prosecution of the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections<\/p>\n
3(7), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with<\/p>\n
Section 120-B IPC. A proposed draft sanction was also<\/p>\n
sent   to    the       Chief      Engineer,          Bisalpur         Project-cum-<\/p>\n
Establishment (Non-Gazetted).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The       Chief      Engineer,          Bisalpur         Project-cum-<\/p>\n
Establishment (Non-Gazetted) by a notice to show cause<\/p>\n
instructed the petitioner as to why the sanction as<\/p>\n
sought for be not granted. An opportunity of personal<\/p>\n
hearing     too        was    allowed          and       the    petitioner           was<\/p>\n
instructed to appear before the competent authority<\/p>\n
for    personal         hearing      on        6.7.2006.         The       competent<\/p>\n
authority     after          hearing          the    petitioner           and        also<\/p>\n
officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau reached at the<\/p>\n
conclusion        that       no   case        is    made       out    against         the<\/p>\n
petitioner and as such decided not to grant sanction<\/p>\n
for prosecution. While doing so the entire record was<\/p>\n
forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner as per<\/p>\n
Government        of     Rajasthan,            Department            of    Personnel<\/p>\n
(Group-III) Circular dated 30.5.2001. On 15.9.2006 the<\/p>\n
matter      was    placed         before           the     Secretary           to     the<\/p>\n
Government         of        Rajasthan,             Department            of        Water
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Resources, who made a note “examine and put up”. The<\/p>\n
Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, examined the matter<\/p>\n
and made a note as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “I have gone through the file. Both the
\n               parties – ACB officers and the JEn. Sh.
\n               Vishnoi – are giving contradicting facts,
\n               therefore, in my view both of them should be
\n               called personally to present their case
\n               before the Secretary WR.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The Secretary, Water Resources on 3.10.2006<\/p>\n
made a note that “appointing authority for J.En. is<\/p>\n
C.E.    Prosecution        sanction         is   issued       by    appointing<\/p>\n
authority.       This     matter    should            not    come    to    State<\/p>\n
Government”. After the noting as above the matter was<\/p>\n
again    placed      before       the       Chief      Engineer,         Bisalpur<\/p>\n
Project-cum-Establishment               (Non-Gazetted)             who    made   a<\/p>\n
note    that    as   per    Government           of    Rajasthan         circular<\/p>\n
dated 30.5.2001 the competent authority is required to<\/p>\n
forward his opinion before granting or rejecting the<\/p>\n
sanction       for   prosecution            to    the       Chief    Vigilance<\/p>\n
Commissioner and, therefore, entire record of the case<\/p>\n
was    again    remitted     to    the      Secretary,        Department         of<\/p>\n
Water Resources.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               The Secretary, Department of Water Resources<\/p>\n
reexamined the matter and after detailed consideration<\/p>\n
a finding was given that the petitioner was having no<\/p>\n
role    with     regard     to     the      trap       made    on    8.12.2005
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
regarding    acceptance          of       illegal       gratification          as<\/p>\n
alleged by Shri Satpal. The matter then was sent to<\/p>\n
the     Principal        Secretary         to     the        Government        of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan, Department of Home Affairs (Chief Vigilance<\/p>\n
Commissioner) wherein a general note was made under<\/p>\n
paras    No.110     to    113    regarding          care      and      cautions<\/p>\n
required    to    be     taken   while       refusing         for     grant    of<\/p>\n
sanction    for     prosecution.           The     note       made     by     the<\/p>\n
Principal Secretary, Home (CVC) on 24.2.2007 reads as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “110.\u0906\u091c\u0915\u0932 \u0906\u092f \u0926 \u0928 \u092f\u0939 \u092a\u0915 \u0936 \u0924 \u0939 \u0930\u0939 \u0939 \u0915\u0915 \u0915\u0924\u0924\u092a\u092f
\n            \u0935 \u092d \u0917 \u092e \u0930 \u091c\u092f\u0915\u092e \u0930\u0930\u0936 \u0924 \u092a \u092a\u0924 \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0915 \u0936\u0932\u090f \u092e \u0927\u092f\u092e \u0935 \u0915\u0936%\u0924
\n            \u0915\u0930 \u0915\u0915\u092f \u0939\u0964 \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924 \u092a \u0928 \u0915\u0930\u0924 %\u092e\u092f \u0917 \u0939 \u0915
\n             \u092a\u0925 \u092a\u0924 \u092c\u091a \u0915\u0930 \u092c\u092f \u0928 \u0932\u0928 \u0907% \u092a \u0924* \u0924 \u0915 \u092c\u0922                        \u0928\u0964 \u0935 \u092d\u0917
\n            \u092e \u092a     %\u0924\u0928\u0915 %\u091a1 \u091a\u0924       \u0906\u092f \u092f\u0939 \u0935 \u092d \u0917 \u0915 \u0936\u0932\u090f \u0905\u092a\u09154\u0924 \u0939,
\n            \u090f.%).\u092c). %\u0939\u092f \u0917\/ %\u0939 \u092f\u0915 \u0915 \u0930 \u0932 \u0905                    \u0915\u0930 %\u0915\u0924 \u0939\u0964 \u092a\u0930\u0928\u09246
\n            \u092f\u0926    \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924 \u0915              7\u0930 \u0928 \u0905\u0928 \u0937\u0923\/          \u0905\u09286%\u0927
\n                                                                          : \u0928 \u0915
\n            %\u092e \u0928 \u0928\u0924\u0930 \u0915 \u092f \u091c \u0924) \u0939 \u090f : \u0905\u0924\u092f\u091a\u0927\u0915 %\u092e\u092f \u0932\u0917 \u092f
\n            \u091c \u0924 \u0939 \u0924 \u0907%\u0915 \u0915 \u092e               \u0939 \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0915\u092e \u0909\u0920 \u092f\u0917 \u091c\u091c% \u092d\u0937 \u091a \u0930
\n            \u0936\u0932\u092a\u0924 \u092a \u092f \u0917\u092f \u0939\u0964\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            111.\u0910% \u0915\u0908 \u092e \u092e\u0932 \u0906\u092f \u0939 \u091c\u091c\u0928\u092e \u092c                   \u092e    \u092a\u0925 \u092a\u0924 \u092f         \u0939 \u0924\n            \u0915> \u091c \u0915\u0930 \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924 \u0928\u0939=: \u0926 \u092f \u091c \u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0938\u0924                      \u0926 \u092f \u091c\n            \u0930\u0939 \u0939\u0964 \u0907%) \u092a\u0915 \u0930 \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924 \u0915 \u092a\u0938\u0924                      \u092a\u0930 \u0924\u0928\u0923<\u092f \u092e\n<\/pre>\n
            \u092d) \u0905\u0924\u092f\u091a\u0927\u0915 \u0935 \u0932\u092e\u092c \u0939 \u0930\u0939 \u0939\u0964 \u0907%% \u090f.%).\u092c). \u0915 \u092a\u092f % \u0915
\n            \u092a\u092d    \u0915\u092e \u0939 \u091c \u0924 \u0939 \u090f : \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u092a\u0915H\u092f \u092d)                    \u09376 \u092a\u092d \u0935 \u0924 \u0939 \u0924)
\n            \u0939\u0964\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            112.\u0915 \u0936\u092e<\u0915 \u0935 \u092d \u0917 \u0926 \u0930 \u0907% \u092a\u0939\u09321 \u092a\u0930 \u0926                  \u0924\u0928 K     \u0926 \u092f \u091c\u0928\n            \u0905\u092a\u09154\u0924 \u0939\u0964 \u0910% \u0928\u0939= \u0939 \u0928 %               \u0924<\u092e \u0928 \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u091c% \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u092e \u092d)\n                                          6<\/span>\n\n               \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924 \u0928\u0939=:          \u0928 % \u092d\u0937 \u0930 \u091c\u092f \u0915\u0936\u092e<\u092f \u0915 \u092a \u0924% \u0939\u0928\n               \u0936\u092e\u0932\u0917 \u0964\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
               113.\u092f\u0939 \u092d) \u0905\u092a\u09154\u0924 \u0939 \u0915\u0915 (i) 2 \u092e \u0939 \u092e \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f \u091c\u0928 \u0938 )\u0915*\u0924\u0924
\n               \u0928\u0939=:    \u0928     \u0932 %4\u092e \u0905\u091a\u0927\u0915 \u0930= \u0915 \u0924\u0915<%\u092e\u092e\u0924 \u0906\u0927 \u0930 \u092a\u0938\u09246\u0924 \u0915\u0930\u0928
\n               \u090f : \u092f\u0926       \u0910% \u0928\u0939=: \u0915\u0930 \u092a \u0924 \u0939 \u0924 \u0905\u09286            %\u0928 \u0924\u092e\u0915 \u0915 \u092f %\u092e)4 \u0915\u0930\u0964”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The Secretary, Department of Personnel also<\/p>\n
made    a    note      in    paras    No.114      to   122    and   those   too<\/p>\n
relate to the procedure required to be observed while<\/p>\n
considering           cases    for    grant    of      prosecution    as    per<\/p>\n
Section 19 of the Act of 1988. After getting notings<\/p>\n
from    the    Department        of    Personnel        and    Department    of<\/p>\n
Home Affairs the matter was again placed before the<\/p>\n
Special Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary to the Government<\/p>\n
of Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources wherein a<\/p>\n
short note was made in the terms “\u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u092e \u0928\u092f \u092f \u0932\u092f %<\/p>\n
\u0905\u0928 )4       \u0915\u0930 \u092f      \u091c\u0928    \u092f6\u0915N %:\u0917\u0924 \u0930\u0939\u0917 \u0964” The above noting was<\/p>\n
approved by the Principal Secretary to the Government<\/p>\n
of     Rajasthan,           Department       of     Water      Resources     on<\/p>\n
10.5.2007 and the matter was sent for seeking opinion<\/p>\n
of the Deputy Legal Remembrance who too made a short<\/p>\n
note for granting sanction for prosecution. The matter
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
then was placed before the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur<\/p>\n
Project-cum-Establishment              (Non-Gazetted)           who    granted<\/p>\n
sanction     for     prosecution           on     29.5.2007        under    the<\/p>\n
proposed     format       forwarded         by     the     office      of   the<\/p>\n
Superintendent       of     Police,         Anti      Corruption       Bureau,<\/p>\n
Bikaner. The order of suspension then was passed on<\/p>\n
30.5.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           While assailing validity of the decision of<\/p>\n
the   competent      authority         for       granting      sanction     for<\/p>\n
prosecution,       the     contentions           of      counsel      for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner are that (i)the competent authority has not<\/p>\n
applied    his       mind     while          granting          sanction     for<\/p>\n
prosecution    but       simply    acted         upon    the    instructions<\/p>\n
given by other officers of the State Government, (ii)<\/p>\n
the   competent       authority            has     not     considered       the<\/p>\n
explanation        advanced       by       the    petitioner        regarding<\/p>\n
entire incident of trap taken place on 8.12.2005, and<\/p>\n
(iii)on merits too there is no case for prosecuting<\/p>\n
the petitioner for the offences punishable under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           Per contra, stand of the respondents is that<\/p>\n
the    competent          authority          granted        sanction        for<\/p>\n
prosecution    after       considering           material       available    on<\/p>\n
record and on satisfying himself that the prosecution<\/p>\n
is desirable in present set of circumstances. In reply<\/p>\n
to the writ petition the respondents also stated that<\/p>\n
an opportunity of personal hearing was accorded to the
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner and whatever explanation given by him that<\/p>\n
was   taken     into     consideration          by        the   competent<\/p>\n
authority before passing the order dated 29.5.2007. By<\/p>\n
submitting a rejoinder the petitioner reiterated the<\/p>\n
facts averred in the writ petition and also placed on<\/p>\n
record certain documents to substantiate his stand.<\/p>\n
            Heard counsel for the parties and considered<\/p>\n
the rival contentions. The original record of entire<\/p>\n
process relating to grant of sanction for prosecution<\/p>\n
was made available by the respondents and that too is<\/p>\n
examined by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            As per the provisions of the Act of 1988 the<\/p>\n
authority     competent       for       grant    of        sanction    for<\/p>\n
prosecution     is    the    authority     who       is    competent   to<\/p>\n
remove the officer concerned from service and in the<\/p>\n
present case that is the Chief Engineer (respondent<\/p>\n
No.2). From the original record made available by the<\/p>\n
respondents,     it     is    apparent         that       the   authority<\/p>\n
competent at least twice by adequate application of<\/p>\n
his mind reached at the conclusion that no case was<\/p>\n
made out against the petitioner for grant of sanction<\/p>\n
for prosecution. The first note was made by him on<\/p>\n
15.9.2006     after    considering       all    relevant        documents,<\/p>\n
the audio tape on which the investigating agency was<\/p>\n
relying upon and also the explanation given by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. A specific finding was given by the Chief<\/p>\n
Engineer that as a matter of fact a plan was made with
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
ulterior motives to get the petitioner trapped in a<\/p>\n
false      case      through        the       trap    party    of        the   Anti<\/p>\n
Corruption Bureau. The relevant portion of the finding<\/p>\n
given    by    the    Chief     Engineer         on    15.9.2006         reads    as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “\u0909N     \u0938\u0924 \u091c      \u0915 \u0905 \u0932 \u0915\u0928 % \u0938\u092a\u0937 \u0939 \u0924                  \u0939 \u0915\u0915 %\u092e\u092c:\u091a\u0927\u0924
\n              \u0915\u0924\u0928\u0937 \u0905\u0936\u092d\u092f\u0928\u0924 \u0936) \u0939\u09286\u092e \u0928\u0936%:\u0939 \u0935 \u0936\u0928 \u0908 \u0928 \u0905\u092a\u0928) \u0913\u0930 % \u0909N
\n              \u091f\u092a \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 % \u092a1 < \u0928\u0939\u0930= 4\u0924 \u092e \u0939 \u0930\u0939 \u0905 \u0927 \u0915\u092c\u091c \u0915 \u0939\u091f \u0928 \u0915
\n              \u092a1\u0923< \u092a\u092f % \u0915\u0915\u092f \u0964 \u091a1:\u0915\u0915 \u0915\u092c\u091c\u0927 \u0930= \u0909% \u0938\u0925 \u0928 % \u0905\u092a\u0928                        \u0915\u092c\u091c
\n              \u0939\u091f \u0928    \u0928\u0939=: \u091a \u0939\u0924 \u0925 \u0907% \u0915 \u0930\u0923 \u092c \u0924\u0928\u092f\u0924)\u092a1\u0923 \u091f\u092a \u092a \u091fW % \u091f\u092a \u0915\u0930 \u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u092f % \u0915\u0915\u092f \u092a\u0930\u0928\u09246
\n              \u091f\u092a \u092a\u0915\u0930\u0923 \u092e \u0928 \u0924 \u0936) \u0935 \u0936\u0928 \u0908 \u0915.\u0905. \u0926 \u0930 \u0930\u0930\u0936 \u0924) \u0930 \u0936                        \u092a \u092a\u0924
\n              \u092a \u092f \u0917\u092f \u0928 \u0939= \u0930\u0930\u0936 \u0924) \u0930 \u0936             \u0909\u0928\u0915 \u092a % % \u092e7\u0915 \u092a\u0930 \u092c\u0930 \u092e            \u0915>
\n              \u0917\u0908\u0964”\n<\/p>\n
\n              After giving finding as above, the matter was<\/p>\n
placed     before      the     Secretary         to    the     Government         of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan, Department of Water Resources who in turn<\/p>\n
specifically         noted     on    3.10.2006         that    the       issue    is<\/p>\n
required to be determined by the appointing authority<\/p>\n
i.e. the Chief Engineer and the same should not come<\/p>\n
to   the      State    Government.             However,       the    appointing<\/p>\n
authority        forwarded      the       record       for    its        placement<\/p>\n
before     the    Chief      Vigilance         Commissioner         in    view    of<\/p>\n
Government of Rajasthan notification dated 30.5.2001.<\/p>\n
The State Government at its level again considered the<\/p>\n
matter and on 21.2.2007 a specific finding was noted<\/p>\n
that the petitioner never demanded alleged bribe nor
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
he    received      the    same    and     nothing      objectionable        was<\/p>\n
recovered from him. This finding was also given by<\/p>\n
taking into consideration various documents on which<\/p>\n
the    investigating         agency      was     placing      reliance.     The<\/p>\n
matter then was placed before the Principal Secretary<\/p>\n
to    the    Government      of    Rajasthan,         Department      of    Home<\/p>\n
Affairs (Chief Vigilance Commissioner) who noted down<\/p>\n
certain          general     instructions          on        24.2.2007.      The<\/p>\n
instructions given by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner<\/p>\n
are general in nature and as a matter of fact, on<\/p>\n
basis       of   those     instructions        case     of    the   petitioner<\/p>\n
would have been examined by the competent authority.<\/p>\n
Similarly,         the      Secretary       to        the     Government     of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan, Department of Personnel also noted in paras<\/p>\n
No.114 to 122 certain general instructions regarding<\/p>\n
disposal of cases relating to grant of sanction for<\/p>\n
prosecution.            Whatever    notings       made        by    the    Chief<\/p>\n
Vigilance Commissioner, as well as by the Secretary,<\/p>\n
Department of Personal are general in nature and those<\/p>\n
are mere guidelines which are required to be observed<\/p>\n
by the competent authorities and the instructions so<\/p>\n
given       nowhere      considers    case       of    the    petitioner      in<\/p>\n
specific terms. It is strange that the officers of the<\/p>\n
Department         of    Water     Resources          and    the    appointing<\/p>\n
authority i.e. the Chief Engineer (respondent No.2)<\/p>\n
instead of considering case of the petitioner as per<\/p>\n
instructions referred in paras No.110 to 122 granted<\/p>\n
sanction for prosecution in most mechanical manner.<\/p>\n
There is no independent application of mind by the
\n                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
competent     authority    before     granting       such    sanction<\/p>\n
though a definite finding was given for rejecting the<\/p>\n
request for granting sanction for prosecution once on<\/p>\n
15.9.2006 and then on 21.2.2007. Examination of the<\/p>\n
original      record      clearly     establishes           mechanical<\/p>\n
exercise of powers on part of appointing authority.<\/p>\n
This Court in Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan,<\/p>\n
SBCivil     Writ   Petition     No.8249\/2007,          decided      on<\/p>\n
30.9.2009,    while    considering    the    question       regarding<\/p>\n
exercise of administrative powers for placement of a<\/p>\n
civil   servant    under    suspension      in   a    case    of    his<\/p>\n
alleged     involvement    in   a    criminal    case,       held   as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “True it is, suspension of a civil servant is
\n            an administrative action and the government
\n            is having ample power to provide necessary
\n            guidelines to the competent authorities for
\n            exercising powers as per Rule 13, but at the
\n            same time it is also well settled that the
\n            administrative instructions can always be
\n            given to fill up the unoccupied field,
\n            however, such instructions in no way encroach
\n            the space already under occupation of an
\n            statute. In the present case the circular
\n            dated 10.8.2001 nowhere provides instructions
\n            to the competent authority as to how powers
\n            under Rule 13 are required to be exercised,
\n            but it imposes mandate upon the discretion of
\n            the competent authority. Such imposition of a
\n            mandate over statutory discretion is not
\n            permissible        under       administrative
\n            jurisprudence. The State Government would
\n            have been right in providing guidelines or a
\n                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
           mode to exercise discretion under Rule 13 of
\n           the Rules of 1958. The State Government could
\n           have given instances and instructions to the
\n           competent    authority   to    exercise    its
\n           discretion to place an incumbent under
\n           suspension in particular circumstances but
\n           not an order to place government servant
\n           under suspension mandatorily in specific
\n           cases. It is for the competent authority to
\n           examine facts of each and every case and to
\n           settle desirability to place an incumbent
\n           under   suspension   by  applying    objective
\n           discretion. The suspension of an employee,
\n           looking to the facts and circumstances of the
\n           case may be desired urgently or on emergent
\n           basis but in those circumstances also the
\n           competent    authority   must    record    its
\n           satisfaction for exercising powers under Rule\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           13. If such satisfaction is not recorded and
\n           suspension is made merely on basis of the
\n           instructions given in circulars or merely by
\n           a word of mouth or by slip of pen, then that
\n           is nothing but colourable exercise of power.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In the instant matter the competent authority<\/p>\n
acted    upon    the    general     instructions       given    by    the<\/p>\n
Department of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel<\/p>\n
without    application        of    his     own    mind,     thus,    the<\/p>\n
sanction so granted is nothing but a mechanical and<\/p>\n
colourable      exercise   of      powers   and    also    against    the<\/p>\n
thrust of Section 19 of the Act of 1988 that provides<\/p>\n
for necessity of previous sanction for prosecution in<\/p>\n
a case of a person who is employed in connection with<\/p>\n
the affairs of State and is not removable from his<\/p>\n
office    save     by    or     with      the     sanction     of    that
\n                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
Government. The competent authority for granting such<\/p>\n
sanction     is     the      authority    which    would    have    been<\/p>\n
competent to remove the public servant from his office<\/p>\n
at   the     time      the     offence    alleged      to   have    been<\/p>\n
committed. As said above, in the instant matter though<\/p>\n
the sanction is granted by the competent authority but<\/p>\n
no independent application of mind by him was made<\/p>\n
before granting such sanction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves<\/p>\n
acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The<\/p>\n
sanction granted for prosecuting the petitioner by the<\/p>\n
Chief      Engineer,         Bisalpur     Project-cum-Establishment<\/p>\n
(Non-Gazetted),           Department       of     Water     Resources,<\/p>\n
Government        of   Rajasthan,        Jaipur   on    29.5.2007     is<\/p>\n
declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed.<\/p>\n
             No order to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Hanuman Singh Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3628\/2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nHanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2290,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009"},"wordCount":2290,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009","name":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-25T11:55:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-singh-vishnoi-vs-state-ors-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs State & Ors on 14 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}