Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(1) Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA for the State/respondents and perused the record.
(2) Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
(3) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, Man Pal Singh and Rajeshwar Singh, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development, U.P., Lucknow, whereby the sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A mandamus is also sought for restraining the respondents to take any action in any manner against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned order dated 8.1.2021 passed by the respondent no.1.
(4) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2012, First Information Report was lodged against Manager/Principal, S.D. R.P.I.T.C. Institute, Jaleshar Road, Hathras, District Social Welfare Officer, Hathras and Bahorilal, Invigilator, which was registered as Case Crime No. 130 of 2012, under Section 409 I.P.C., at Police Station, Hathras in respect of embezzlement of Rupees One Crore. The investigation of the aforesaid case was entrusted to Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur Sector.
(5) During the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioners came into light and the Investigating Officer, accordingly, has added their names in the present case for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation in the F.I.R., which was registered against the Principal and Manager of the Institute and employees of the Social Welfare Department of Uttar Pradesh at Hathras for siphoning off funds for scholarship.
(6) By the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, sanction for prosecution of the petitioners was granted by the competent authority, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(7) It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that allegations referred in the impugned F.I.R. relate to the year 2010, during which period the petitioner were posted as Joint Director (Training/Apprentice) Bareilly Moradabad Agra Division and Lecturer, Mechanical Engineering PMV Mathura Gaurav Kendra Ishapur Khadar, respectively. The allegation against the petitioners in the investigating report submitted by the Economic Offences Wing pertain solely to wrongful grant of permission to R.P.I.T.C. College, Budhaich, Jalesar Road, Hathras. He submitted that detailed guidelines have been laid down in the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centres for grant of permission for starting a new institute or a new trade and for necessary affiliation of the same with the State Government by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and the Directorate General of Employment and Training. He submitted that neither any preliminary enquiry/inspection was done by the Director nor any subsequent inspection or verification in terms of the guidelines and order dated 23.06.2008 was ordered or carried out by him but yet no action of any kind is proposed or initiated against him or the then Principal ITI, Hathras, T. Afzal.
(8) Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Standing Committee of which the petitioners were members, is only a recommending body. Its recommendations under the Scheme, are not at all binding upon the Committee constituted at the level of the Central Government, which is the only body empowered to take a decision. The approval for affiliation was granted to the institute in question for starting its operation by the Central Government Sub-Committee vide order dated 15.06.2010, whereupon it began running courses so approved but the petitioners since then have had nothing to do with the concerned institute in any capacity whatsoever.
(9) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has next contended that neither of the petitioners had ever granted approval for affiliation or permission of any kind to the institute for starting of the institute or of any trade in it. Their role was confined to being a member of the Standing Committee which gave its report way back in the year 2010. He also submitted that the impugned order, which has been passed by the Additional Principal Secretary, Vocational Education and Skill Development, U.P., Lucknow, was under the dictates of the order passed by the Additional Principal Secretary, Home (Confidential), State of U.P., Lucknow dated 29.06.2020, hence respondent no.2 did not apply its mind and issued the order in mechanical manner.
(10) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the impugned order does not disclose as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority, which granted permission for prosecution of the petitioners, hence the same is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
(11) To strengthen his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal : 2014 (14) SCC 295 and has submitted that the prosecution ought to have sent entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority ought to have taken decision after being aware of all relevant facts and material and applying its mind to the same but in the instant case, no reason has been assigned as to why the sanction for petitioner is necessary except reference of investigation made by Economic Offence Wing.
(12) Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order and has submitted that impugned order reflects that application of mind has been applied by the sanctioning authority, who considered the material and evidence which come up during the course of investigation and has rightly granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioners, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(13) After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as relevant material brought on record, it is apparent that sanctioning authority has passed the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioners after considering the relevant oral and documentary evidence brought during the course of investigation and found that the petitioners have granted permission to the institute with respect to 2 Electricians and 2 Fitter Trades without the said institute having any building or laboratory or workshop constructed therein. It was also found that without there being any building, in a collusion with one Manoj Yadav, a joint inspection was made and report was prepared by showing the building of R.P Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Budaich and the signatures of the petitioners were found on the same and they granted a wrong approval to the institute on the basis of the frivolous documents. Thereafter, on considering the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioners, the State Government after considering the entire material on record along with all the complete evidences was satisfied that the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted in pursuance of the FIR which was registered as Case Crime No.130 of 2012, under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Hathras before the Court of competent jurisdiction and has accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner while passing the impugned order.
(14) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind, nor has perused the documents and other relevant material on record before grant of sanction does not have any substance, as the competent authority has applied its mind while passing the impugned order and has given valid reason for grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.
(15) The other contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed under the dictates of the respondent no.1, who passed the order dated 29.06.2020, is not acceptable as the respondent no.1, while passing the order dated 29.06.2020, has only sought information from the respondent no.2 with regard to the matter where the prosecution of sanction is awaited. There is nothing on record that the respondent no.1 has ever asked the respondent no.2, who has passed the impugned order, to pass the order against the petitioners or in favour of the petitioners.
(16) Moreover, the case law which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the proposition of law which has been enunciated in the said case law also cannot be disputed, but the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the facts of the said case. Hence, the same cannot be made applicable in the present case.
(17) In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any flaw in the impugned order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the State Government granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.
(18) The petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(19) Costs easy.
.