IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 400 of 2008
Ram Lakhan Mishra ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
2. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi
... ... ... Opp. Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
C.A.V. on: 22.02.2011 Pronounced on: 20.04.2011
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R.
lodged against the petitioner and others registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13
of 2007 corresponding to Special Case No. 17 of 2007 under Sections
409/420/467/468
/471/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act and also for quashing
the entire investigation and proceedings initiated by the police against him on
the basis of the said F.I.R. pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.
2. On 03.10.2007 a written report was lodged by the S.P. Vigilance,
Ranchi before the Officerincharge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi stating
irregularities committed in the Employment Guaranteed Scheme in the
department of Rural Engineer Organization of the Government of Jharkhand in
which it was alleged that the government money has been misutilised. The
irregularities were enquired. The irregularities committed was with regard to the
construction/repair of roads and digging and/or construction of ponds. After
measurement, it was found that the work was not done upto the mark. It was
also alleged that wrong budget was prepared and on the basis of said wrong
budget the Government sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,04,81,900/ (One crore four
lac eighty one thousand nine hundred) wherein a sum of Rs. 54,98,892/ (Fifty
four lac ninety eight thousand eight hundred ninety two) was embazzled. On the
basis of said report F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner and two
other engineers of the department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and all the allegations levelled against him
are false and baseless. It is also submitted that the allegation levelled against the
petitioner in the F.I.R. is only on the basis of the report of two persons namely
Shri Amarendra Kumar, Executive Magistrate and Shri B.K. Singh, Executive
Engineer, R.E.O. It is submitted that those persons have neither physically visited
the site nor verified the allegation but submitted the report which is the basis of
the entire prosecution. He has further submitted that the departmental
proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner on the same charge as in the
criminal case. The petitioner was issued a showcause notice. A full fledged
(2)
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After conclusion of
the proceeding, the petitioner was exonerated from the departmental proceeding
vide order dated 05.07.2006. It is also contended that the departmental
proceeding was dropped by the department concerned, after having come to a
conclusion that the enquiry team, who submitted the initial report stating about
the defalcation of Rs. 54,98,892/ (Fifty four lac ninety eight thousand eight
hundred ninety two), is not correct as the work has not been measured in a
detailed manner. It was submitted that the present F.I.R. which is the basis of
the report for prosecution of the petitioner and others, has got no legs to stand
and is fit to be set aside.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the vigilance Mr. Shekhar
Sinha submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and from the
allegation against the petitioner it is apparent that it is a case of forgery. It is
also submitted that at present investigation is going on and therefore this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is fit to be dismissed. In this context learned
counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2007)XIV SCC
497 (Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Laxmi Dhaul) in which the Apex
Court has held that the High Court was not justified in examining the matter and
quashing the police investigation which was pending against the respondent.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in which the investigation is
going on, cannot be quashed at this stage.
5. In my opinion the approach and the objective in the criminal
proceedings and the disciplinary proceeding is altogether distinct and different.
In the disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether delinquent is guilty of
such conduct as would result in his removal from service or a lesser punishment,
as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether
the offences registered against the accused under the Prevention of Corruption
Act or I.P.C. if any, are established or not and if established, what sentence
should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and
the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely
distinct and different.
6. From the contents of the F.I.R., I find that the petitioner is named
in the F.I.R. and there are sufficient materials/allegations against him regarding
his involvement in this offence.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no reason to quash the F.I.R. and
the entire criminal proceeding at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
(Jaya Roy, J.)
B.N.O.