Court invalidates sanction orders due to lack of relevant documents, bias, and mala fides

The court invalidated the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 due to lack of relevant documents before the authority, emphasizing non-application of mind. It found the investigation biased, tainted with mala fides, and lacking impartiality. The court quashed the sanction orders, charge sheet, and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, granting finality to the matter and acknowledging the petitioner's prolonged suffering.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002.
2. Whether the relevant documents were placed before the sanctioning authority.
3. Whether there was due application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
4. Whether the investigation was conducted impartially and fairly.
5. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner were tainted with mala fides.
6. Maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sanction Orders:
The court scrutinized the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002, finding them invalid due to the absence of relevant documents being placed before the sanctioning authority. The orders were verbatim copies of draft sanction orders, indicating non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The court emphasized that for a valid sanction, the authority must be apprised of all relevant material and facts, which was not the case here.

2. Relevant Documents Not Placed Before the Sanctioning Authority:
The court noted that crucial documents, such as the reply to the Letter Rogatory (LR) dated 27.06.2001 and the relevant fax dated 13.01.1998, were not included in the SP's report sent to the sanctioning authority. These documents were pivotal as they established the genuineness of the fax in question, which was central to the allegations against the petitioner. The absence of these documents led to the conclusion that the sanctioning authority did not have the complete material to make an informed decision.

3. Due Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority:
The court highlighted that the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind to the facts and material before granting sanction. The verbatim adoption of the draft sanction order without considering the relevant documents demonstrated a lack of independent application of mind. This procedural lapse rendered the sanction orders invalid.

4. Impartiality and Fairness of the Investigation:
The investigation was found to be biased and influenced by external factors. The court observed that the investigation seemed to be directed towards implicating the petitioner while ignoring exculpatory evidence. The conduct of the CBI, such as not pursuing further details from the Swiss Bank Corporation and relying on questionable documents provided by Mr. Mandeep Kapur, raised serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation.

5. Mala Fides in the Proceedings:
The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner were tainted with mala fides. The genesis of the litigation was a disagreement between the petitioner and his superior, leading to a series of biased actions against the petitioner. The court noted that the investigation was not only faulty but also appeared to be motivated by an intent to ensure certain individuals were not prosecuted.

6. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Despite the respondents' argument that the petition raised disputed questions of fact, the court found that the issues could be resolved based on the documents and material on record without the need for oral evidence. The court emphasized that it is not precluded from determining questions of fact under its writ jurisdiction, especially when the facts are clear and undisputed.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002, the charge sheet, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. It directed that no further proceedings be initiated in relation to the subject sanction orders, providing finality to the matter. The court also highlighted the prolonged suffering and prejudice faced by the petitioner due to the biased and unfair investigation.

---