Amitava Roy, C.J.

1. Defects are waived.

2. The instant proceeding witnesses an impeachment of the order of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No. 147/2013 of Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

3. We have heard Mr. Madhav Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue formal notice to the respondents. Shortly put the facts in bare minimum, are that the petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (for short, hereafter referred to as the RHJS) and was posted as District Judge, Ajmer at the relevant time on 07.05.2012. During his tenure there, 42 vacancies for appointment of Lower Division Clerk in the District Court of Ajmer, were advertised on 10.01.2013 by the Officer-in-Charge of the examination and the schedule of dates outlining the process of recruitment was drawn and in terms thereof, results were to be declared 25.04.2013. This process, however, had to be abandoned in view of the complaints alleging bias, favouritism and unfair selection of candidates. According to the petitioner, to administer the process, a screening committee was constituted, of which he was only a member, but did exercise supervision over the examination held being an essential segment of the exercise. The petitioner has stated that later on he did come to learn that a complaint had been lodged by one Mahaveer Prasad Joshi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur about the involvement of few persons, named therein, indulging, amongst others, in receiving illegal gratification from the aspirants in return of assurance of their appointments. According to the petitioner, the complaint also did indicate his involvement in such activities.

5. On the complaint, Criminal Case No. 147/2013 was registered before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur and after conducting the investigation in connection therewith, charge-sheet No. 180/2013 was submitted on 19.06.2013 against four persons, (excluding the petitioner) under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. That in course of the investigation, the petitioner was also interrogated in the month of May, 2013, has been stated. He, however, underlined that the investigation, qua him, was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Code). The petitioner has pleaded that in the investigation, no concrete, direct or substantive evidence vis-a-vis him, has surfaced.

6. While the matter rested at that, he came to learn from a news item in the issue dated 08.11.2013 of the daily Rajasthan Patrika that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had forwarded the matter to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur (for short, hereafter referred to as the High Court) seeking sanction for his prosecution under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 14 of the Act read with Section 120-B IPC. That, meanwhile, he had been placed under suspension on and from 24.06.2013, but no disciplinary proceeding against him under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Rules) had been initiated, was mentioned as well. Referring to Section 19 of the Act and 197 of the Code, the petitioner has urged that in terms thereof, in his case, the State Government is the only authority to decide on the issue of grant or otherwise of sanction for his prosecution. He has further alleged that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, instead of referring the issue in this state of law first to Her Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, forwarded the same to the High Court and that the latter made recommendations for grant of sanction for prosecution against him, as revealed by the letter dated 28.01.2014, issued by the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. While pleading that he did not have any notice of the developments pertaining to the issue of sanction and that he drew the information with regard thereto only from the media reports, the petitioner has stated that he submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 seeking a copy of the order of sanction, which too was rejected.

7. In this backdrop of the pleaded facts, Mr. Mitra has emphatically argued that the process culminating in the grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner being apparently not in conformity with the one, comprehended under Section 19(2) of the Act and 197(1) of the Code, the same is illegal, null and void. The learned counsel has insisted that the order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is, thus, invalid on the face of the records. According to Mr. Mitra, the recommendations made by the High Court on the basis of the records forwarded by the investigating agency, had rendered the scrutiny thereof by the sanctioning authority an empty formality and on that count as well, the order of sanction is non est in law. The learned counsel has maintained that the consistent refusal of the respondents to grant access to the petitioner to the relevant records only demonstrates deep rooted bias against him, thus, defiling the exercise involved. While reiterating that the only basis of his information, on the issue of sanction, being newspaper reports, Mr. Mitra has urged that in the attendant facts and circumstances, he has been unnecessarily subjected to vilification for no fault of his and thus, this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to intervene for redress.

8. The pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the arguments advanced, have received our due consideration.

9. Section 19(1) & 19(2) of the Act and 197(1) of the Code, constituting the sheet anchor of the challenge of the petitioner, are extracted herein below for ready reference:-

19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:

[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.]

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused or any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, section 376A, section 376C, section 376D or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].

10. A bare perusal of the above excerpts would evince that in case of the petitioner, the sanctioning authority is the State Government. However, the same do not demonstrably bear out the correctness of the plea that the process adopted by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in the case in hand, had been either inconsistent with one, as contemplated by these legal provisions, or repugnant thereto. It is a trite law that while deciding as to whether sanction for prosecution ought to be granted or not, the authority concerned has to scrutinize and analyze the materials laid before it and having a bearing on the issue. Even if the records of the case had been routed through the High Court and the same had been forwarded to the sanctioning authority referring to the relevant facts surfacing in course of the investigation, the eventual order of the sanctioning authority cannot ipso facto be repudiated as non est in law. Apart from the presumption of validity of an official act unless rebutted from the pleaded averments and the documents on record, it is not possible to infer that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind before taking the final decision. To presume to the contrary only because the records were routed through the High Court, would be wholly inferential, more importantly in the context of Article 235 of the Constitution of India.

11. It is no longer res integra that while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, only thing which the competent authority is required to see is whether the materials placed by the complainant or the investigating agency, prima-facie, disclose commission of an offence. The competent authority is not expected to undertake a detailed inquiry to ascertain as to whether the allegations levelled against the public servant are true. It is not the case of the petitioner that the sanctioning authority, in the instant case, did not peruse the entire records and examine the materials collected against him before granting sanction for his prosecution. In other words, from the pleaded facts and the documents on record, it is not possible to arrive at an unmistakable conclusion that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind and that the order sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner was a mere ritualistic act, as alleged. It is not possible to conclude either that the sanctioning authority, on the basis of the materials before it, had not derived a genuine satisfaction that the prosecution of the petitioner ought to be sanctioned. These propositions are so fundamental that it is considered inessential to burden the narration with authorities on the aspect of sanction for prosecution.

12. On an overall consideration of the above aspect, we are, thus, of the unhesitant opinion that the impugnment of the order of sanction is clearly unsustainable in law and on facts and is thus rejected. The petitioners grievance pertaining to non-furnishing of informations/records, also does not weigh with us. Having regard to the contextual facts, suffice it to mention, at this stage, that on the basis of a complaint involving imputation of corruption, the investigation was initiated, amongst others, against the petitioner and eventually, on the completion thereof, necessary records were forwarded to the sanctioning authority. The grant of sanction, in our comprehension, cannot be invalidated by acting on the speculation of the petitioner that there had been no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority to the relevant materials. We reiterate that the plea that the procedure prescribed by Section 19 of the Act and 197 of the Code had not been followed, does not commend for acceptance. As a matter of fact, no procedure as such is laid down in these legal provisions. If the order of sanction for prosecution cannot be demonstrated to be wanting in application of mind and the required analysis of the relevant materials, the same cannot, in our opinion, be invalidated on the basis of the inferences. The Anti Corruption Bureau, having investigated the case, it has to be taken to its logical conclusion and thus, the plea that the petitioner had been subjected to humiliation and ignominy, is also of no consequence. In the exercise of the power of judicial review, thus, in absence of any decipherable and vitiating illegality, we are not inclined to sustain the present impugnment.

13. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.