Quashing of FIR - allegations of corruptions against IAS cadre officer and others - Bihar govt. order for vigilance enquiry - when challenged high court granted 8 months time for completing enquiry - Bifurcation of Bihar & Jarkhand - Accused was allotted to Jarkhand State - FIR reg. basing on vigilance report at Bihar Govt. - writ to quash the FIR due to lack of Jurisdiction - Apex court held that since the vigilance report/ enquiry is not transferred as per the circulars r/w as per sec.76 of Re organisation Act to Jarkhand State which holds jurisdiction to conduct enquiry - and since the enquiry report not completed with in 8 months as per the High court , the proceedings stands cancelled and as such the FIR registered basing on vigilance report of Bihar Govt at Bihar state against the IAS Cadre officer not maintainable - confirmed the High court judgment and dismissed the appeal =
On 1st June, 1996 complaints were received against the 1st
respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two
NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC
beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial
favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries.
They were
also alleged of tampering with records.
The Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry. and also contempt later on.=
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
8 months, subject to grant of extension.=
Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State
of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganisation Act”).
15th November,
2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation.
The 1st
respondent was allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.=
Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C.
and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna. =
The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August,
2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the
Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to
direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or
to proceed against him. =
Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003
under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B) I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also
registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC
for giving financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,
Patna.=
Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the IAS
Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November, 2000, i.e. the date on which
the Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against
him.
Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him will
stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15th November,
2000.
In that view of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the lodging of the FIR against him by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau of the State of Bihar is completely without
jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.=
On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was submitted that since
the alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent had taken place
within the State of Bihar while the 1st respondent was still serving State
of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR.
It had been submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as
much as the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he was
serving in the State of Bihar.
On this ground it had been argued that there was no merit in the submission of the 1st respondent.=
12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act which came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000.
Referring
to provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central
Government the learned Single Judge held that in the present case it is
Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the Vigilance
Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the
matter or to lodge FIR.=
Apex court held that
So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the Central Government,
which were relied upon by the learned Judge of the High Court is concerned,
we are of the opinion that they are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.=
it is clear
that the circulars aforesaid related to the Departmental Inquiry and
Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to lodging of FIR
against an officer of either State at one or other place. Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has nothing to do
with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter of challenge to an FIR
(quashing of FIR), neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central Government, as
noticed by the High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to the provisions
of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central Government
for holding the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar.=
by the
Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated 20th December, 2000. The
Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent authority to take a
decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other
action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have
been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.=
Therefore, it is rightly contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that in view of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS
cadre of the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceases to have a jurisdiction to investigate against
the 1st respondent.
Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was not
completed within 8 months as directed by the High Court. Having not
completed the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High
Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-compliance
of Court’s order.
31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st respondent based on the
Vigilance Inquiry which stood quashed. Therefore, in view of finding
recorded above, we hold that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by
State of Bihar was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High
Court.
32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1615 OF 2013
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and others
against the judgment dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the High Court
Judicature at Patna in Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002. By the impugned judgment
the High Court giving reference to the provisions of Bihar Reorganisation
Act, 2000 held that the impugned FIR instituted on 20th August, 2002 by
State of Bihar, much after the appointed day is not maintainable and
quashed the FIR.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The 1st respondent – Ashok Kumar Singh belongs to Indian
Administrative Service. He was an officer for the cadre of unified Bihar
and was posted as the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BSFC”) (between 12th May, 1994 and
19 June, 1998). On 1st June, 1996 complaints were received against the 1st
respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two
NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC
beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial
favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries. They were
also alleged of tampering with records. The Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
3. The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry. The same
was disposed of with certain observations. The observation made by the High
Court having not complied with, a contempt petition bearing
M.J.C.No.1498/1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna High Court.
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
8 months, subject to grant of extension.
4. Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State
of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganisation Act”). 15th November,
2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation. The 1st
respondent was allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre. In absence of any
progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the 1st respondent filed writ petition
bearing CWJC No.1573/2001 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. He
sought an order to restrain the State of Bihar from proceeding with the
inquiry against him and from taking any coercive action against him. He
also sought to quash the notice dated 7th April, 2001 issued by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (Investigation) asking him to appear on
24th April, 2001 in the inquiry.
5. The High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 20th April, 2001 refused
to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the writ petition. The Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the 1st respondent against the order dated 20th
April, 2001 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Jharkhand by order dated 27th September, 2001.
6. Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C.
and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna.
7. The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August,
2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the
Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to
direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or
to proceed against him. The Vigilance Department filed its counter
affidavit thereto.
8. Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003
under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B) I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also
registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC
for giving financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,
Patna.
9. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Patna
High Court and by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2007 the
learned Single Judge quashed the FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002
dared 20th August, 2002 lodged against the 1st respondent and restrained
the petitioner-State of Bihar from proceeding with the case.
10. Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the IAS
Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November, 2000, i.e. the date on which
the Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against
him. Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him will
stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15th November,
2000. In that view of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the lodging of the FIR against him by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau of the State of Bihar is completely without
jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
11. On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was submitted that since
the alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent had taken place
within the State of Bihar while the 1st respondent was still serving State
of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR.
It had been submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as
much as the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he was
serving in the State of Bihar. On this ground it had been argued that there
was no merit in the submission of the 1st respondent.
12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act which came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000. Referring
to provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central
Government the learned Single Judge held that in the present case it is
Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the Vigilance
Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the
matter or to lodge FIR.
13. Before this Court the parties have taken similar pleas as was taken
before the High Court.
14. On perusal of records and on careful consideration of the rival
submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that P.S.
Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002 against the 1st respondent was
maintainable and learned Judge of the High Court was wrong in holding that
the said FIR lodged at Patna, Bihar was not maintainable.
15. So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the Central Government,
which were relied upon by the learned Judge of the High Court is concerned,
we are of the opinion that they are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. For coming to such finding it is
desirable to discuss the relevant provisions of the Reorganisation Act and
Circulars issued by Central Government from time to time.
16. Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act deals with power of Central
Government to give directions to the State Government which reads as
follows:
“Section 76. Power of Central Government to give directions.-
The Central Government may give such directions to the State
Government of Bihar and the State Government of Jharkhand as may
appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to
the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government
shall comply with such directions.”
17. In exercise of power conferred under Section 76 the Central
Government issued a direction dated 28th March, 2002 in which it was
provided that if any vigilance inquiry or investigation is pending against
any Officer of All India Services it will be completed by the authorities
of the State to which he has been allotted. In the aforesaid circular dated
28th March, 2002 a reference has been made to Memorandum No.13013/8/2000-
AIS(I) which is an office memorandum issued by the Government of India
under the subject:- Personnel related issues incident to bifurcation of
States. Paragraph 2 of the said memorandum reads as follows:
“2[a]:- The original service records as well as the CR dossiers
of officers of the All India Services should be in the
custody of the concerned State of which the individual
officer stands allotted. Hence, the service records and CR
dossiers of officers allotted to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh
and Uttaranchal should be transferred to these States.
[b] The custody and conduct of pending disciplinary
proceedings/inquiries in respect of IAS officers belonging
to the new ‘residual States is to be regulated by the
explanation below Rule 7[1][b] of the All India Services
[Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1969 which is as under:-
Explanation – For the purposes of clause [b] of sub rule
[1] where the Government of a State is the authority
competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against a
member of the Service, in the event of a reorganization
after such reorganization of the State. The Government on
whose cadre he is borne after such reorganization shall be
the authority competent to institute disciplinary
proceedings and, subject to the provisions of sub-rule [2],
to impose on him any penalty specified in rule 6.”
18. By another letter No.1 Misc.8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 clarification has
been made regarding the pending proceedings against the AIS Officers
pursuant to bifurcation of the States. In the said letter a reference has
been made to letter No.11018/2/2001-AIS[III] dated 10th July, 2001 in which
the following clarifications have been given:-
“[i] The Government of Jharkhand would be the competent
authority to complete pending vigilance enquiries against
officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has
already been clarified in this Department’s OM No.13013/8/2000-
AIS[I] dated 20.12.2000 [Annexure-20]
[ii] The Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent
authority to take a decision regarding initiation of
disciplinary proceedings or any other action based on the final
report of any vigilance inquiry which may have been initiated by
the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now stands
allocated to Jharkhand cadre.”
19. On behalf of the State of Bihar it was submitted before the High
Court that the dates of the alleged occurrence were prior to the creation
of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, Section 76 of the Reorganisation
Act will make no difference. Moreover, it was contended that the alleged
places of occurrence of the various offences said to have been committed by
the 1st respondent were within the State of Bihar and, therefore, the
Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar will not lose the
jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st respondent. In this connection
counsel on behalf of the State of Bihar drew attention of the Court to
Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act which reads as follows:-
“Section 89. Transfer of pending proceedings – [1] Every
proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a
court [other than the High Court], tribunal, authority or
officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of
Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the
territory, which as from that day is the territory of Jharkhand
State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal,
authority or officer of that State.
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
20. Learned Judge having noticed the aforesaid provisions and circulars
issued by the Central Government observed as follows:
“As stated above with the creation of State of Jharkhand the
services of the petitioner stood transferred to this State with
effect from 15.11.2000. It is clear that on this date the
vigilance inquiry with respect to the Vigilance P.S. Case No.7
of 2002 was pending against the petitioner whose F.I.R.
[Annexure 25] is dated 20.8.2002 filed against the petitioner
and others. This shows that till then the investigation against
the petitioner was pending and the F.I.R. in this regard was
lodged on 20.08.2002 much after the creation of the State of
Jharkhand. The important question that will arise in this
connection would be whether any investigation by the State of
Bihar would have been carried out against an officer of IAS
cadre whose services were transferred/allotted to the State of
Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000 culminating in lodging of
the F.I.R. [Annexure – 25] on 20.08.2007 ? Form what has been
noticed above it is clear that the law does not permit the
Cabinet [Vigilance Department] Government of Bihar to lodge the
F.I.R. against the petitioner on 20.08.2002 when he was already
allotted to the State of Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000
and was born on the I.A.S. cadre of the State. Obviously the
answer to this question would be in negative. From this it would
appear that the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner in
Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 [Annexure -25] was completely
without jurisdiction in view of the letters and the different
orders issued in this regard as noticed above.”
21. Admittedly, the first respondent had not challenged the vigilance
inquiry in the writ petition in question before the High Court of
Judicature at Patna. What was challenged was the FIR lodged against the 1st
respondent as Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002
under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C. and under
Section 13(1(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 qua the 1st respondent.
22. The 1st respondent challenged the vigilance inquiry in the earlier
writ petition bearing Cr. W.J.C. No.7680/1997 in the Patna High Court. That
was disposed of on 25th November, 1997. There was no occasion for the 1st
respondent to challenge the said vigilance inquiry by filing another writ
petition.
23. Part VIII of the Reorganisation Act relates to “provisions as to the
services”. Under Section 76 the Central Government has been empowered to
give such directions to the State Government of Bihar and State Government
of Jharkhand as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving
effect to the provisions of Part VIII and the State Governments are made
bound to comply with such directions. By the clarifications issued from
time to time, as referred to above, State Government on whose cadre the
accused officers were posted after bifurcation was directed to institute
disciplinary proceedings against such officers. By letter dated 10th July,
2001 it was clarified by the Central Government that the State of Jharkhand
would be the competent authority to complete pending vigilance inquires
against officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already
been clarified in this Department’s Office Memorandum dated 20th December,
2000.
24. From the aforesaid circulars issued from time to time it is clear
that the circulars aforesaid related to the Departmental Inquiry and
Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to lodging of FIR
against an officer of either State at one or other place. Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has nothing to do
with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter of challenge to an FIR
(quashing of FIR), neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central Government, as
noticed by the High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to the provisions
of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central Government
for holding the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar.
25. The allegations are related to the period 12th May, 1994 to 1st June,
1996 when the 1st respondent was posted at Patna, Bihar as Managing
Director of the BSFC, therefore, on behalf of the appellant it was rightly
submitted that since the alleged commission of offences by the 1st
respondent has taken place in State of Bihar while he was serving the
State, it will have jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st respondent and
to lodge FIR at Patna.
26. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent also raised the question of
legality of the FIR, in view of the order passed by the Patna High Court
and Jharkhand High Court from time to time.
27. Under Section 76, the Central Government is empowered to give such
directions to the State Government of Bihar and State Government Jharkhand,
for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Bihar
Reorganisation Act, the State Government is bound to comply with such
directions. By letter No.1 Misc. 8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 issued by the
Central Government clarification has been made regarding the pending
proceedings against the AIS officers pursuant to bifurcation of States. In
the said letter a reference has been made to letter No.11018/2/2001-
AIS[III] dated 10th July, 2001 in which it was clarified by the Central
Government that the Government of Jharkhand would be the competent
authority to complete pending vigilance inquiries against the officers who
stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already clarified by the
Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated 20th December, 2000. The
Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent authority to take a
decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other
action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have
been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.
28. In view of the aforesaid circular dated 20th December, 2000 and by
letter dated 10th July, 2001 read with Section 76 of the Reorganisation
Act, vigilance inquiry which was initiated against the 1st respondent by
the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar prior to reorganisation of
the State i.e. 15th November, 2000, should have been transferred to the
Vigilance Department of the State of Jharkhand, as the 1st respondent was
allocated cadre of Jharkhand and was posted under the Government of
Jharkhand. Therefore, it is rightly contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that in view of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS
cadre of the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceases to have a jurisdiction to investigate against
the 1st respondent.
29. The 1st respondent had challenged the inquiry before the Patna High
Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.7680 of 1997. The said
case was disposed of with certain observations. Having not complied with, a
contempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.1498 of 1998 was filed by the 1st
respondent in the Patna High Court. It was also disposed of on 29th
November, 1999 with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8
months, subject to grant of extension. Order dated 29th November, 1999 is
quoted hereunder:
“In pursuance of Court’s order, Mr. Arvind Prasad,
Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are present in the
Court with relevant file.
It appears that the Vigilance Department submitted report
in favour of petitioner wherein the Chief Secretary ordered to
obtain opinion from the Vigilance Commissioner; petitioner and
thereafter from Law Department. After receiving the opinion of
the Vigilance Commissioner; reply of petitioner, the matter was
forwarded to the Law Department, which recommended to remand the
matter to the Vigilance Department for further inquiry on
certain facts. In view of such remand, the Vigilance Department
is holding further inquiry in respect of allegations as were
made against the petitioner.
The Vigilance Commissioner states that the further inquiry
will be concluded within six months and report will be submitted
to the Government within the aforesaid period.
On behalf of the State, the Secretary, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department states that final decision
would be taken by the State by Vigilance Department within two
months thereof.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of processing
against the opposite parties, I allow them further time to
conclude the vigilance inquiry and to pass final order thereof
within eight months from today, on failure the said proceeding
will stand quashed on the ground of non-compliance of the
Court’s order.
However, it will be open to the appropriate authority to
ask for more time, on genuine ground. The appearance of Mr.
Arvind Prasad, Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are
dispensed with.
The M.J.C. application stands disposed of.”
30. Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was not
completed within 8 months as directed by the High Court. Having not
completed the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High
Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-compliance
of Court’s order.
31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st respondent based on the
Vigilance Inquiry which stood quashed. Therefore, in view of finding
recorded above, we hold that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by
State of Bihar was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High
Court.
32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
……………………………………………………………………………J.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 9, 2014.
On 1st June, 1996 complaints were received against the 1st
respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two
NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC
beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial
favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries.
They were
also alleged of tampering with records.
The Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry. and also contempt later on.=
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
8 months, subject to grant of extension.=
Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State
of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganisation Act”).
15th November,
2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation.
The 1st
respondent was allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.=
Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C.
and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna. =
The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August,
2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the
Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to
direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or
to proceed against him. =
Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003
under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B) I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also
registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC
for giving financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,
Patna.=
Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the IAS
Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November, 2000, i.e. the date on which
the Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against
him.
Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him will
stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15th November,
2000.
In that view of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the lodging of the FIR against him by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau of the State of Bihar is completely without
jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.=
On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was submitted that since
the alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent had taken place
within the State of Bihar while the 1st respondent was still serving State
of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR.
It had been submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as
much as the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he was
serving in the State of Bihar.
On this ground it had been argued that there was no merit in the submission of the 1st respondent.=
12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act which came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000.
Referring
to provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central
Government the learned Single Judge held that in the present case it is
Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the Vigilance
Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the
matter or to lodge FIR.=
Apex court held that
So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the Central Government,
which were relied upon by the learned Judge of the High Court is concerned,
we are of the opinion that they are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.=
it is clear
that the circulars aforesaid related to the Departmental Inquiry and
Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to lodging of FIR
against an officer of either State at one or other place. Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has nothing to do
with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter of challenge to an FIR
(quashing of FIR), neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central Government, as
noticed by the High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to the provisions
of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central Government
for holding the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar.=
by the
Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated 20th December, 2000. The
Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent authority to take a
decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other
action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have
been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.=
Therefore, it is rightly contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that in view of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS
cadre of the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceases to have a jurisdiction to investigate against
the 1st respondent.
Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was not
completed within 8 months as directed by the High Court. Having not
completed the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High
Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-compliance
of Court’s order.
31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st respondent based on the
Vigilance Inquiry which stood quashed. Therefore, in view of finding
recorded above, we hold that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by
State of Bihar was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High
Court.
32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41757
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1615 OF 2013
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and others
against the judgment dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the High Court
Judicature at Patna in Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002. By the impugned judgment
the High Court giving reference to the provisions of Bihar Reorganisation
Act, 2000 held that the impugned FIR instituted on 20th August, 2002 by
State of Bihar, much after the appointed day is not maintainable and
quashed the FIR.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The 1st respondent – Ashok Kumar Singh belongs to Indian
Administrative Service. He was an officer for the cadre of unified Bihar
and was posted as the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BSFC”) (between 12th May, 1994 and
19 June, 1998). On 1st June, 1996 complaints were received against the 1st
respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two
NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC
beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial
favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries. They were
also alleged of tampering with records. The Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
3. The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry. The same
was disposed of with certain observations. The observation made by the High
Court having not complied with, a contempt petition bearing
M.J.C.No.1498/1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna High Court.
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
8 months, subject to grant of extension.
4. Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State
of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganisation Act”). 15th November,
2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation. The 1st
respondent was allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre. In absence of any
progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the 1st respondent filed writ petition
bearing CWJC No.1573/2001 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. He
sought an order to restrain the State of Bihar from proceeding with the
inquiry against him and from taking any coercive action against him. He
also sought to quash the notice dated 7th April, 2001 issued by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (Investigation) asking him to appear on
24th April, 2001 in the inquiry.
5. The High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 20th April, 2001 refused
to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the writ petition. The Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the 1st respondent against the order dated 20th
April, 2001 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Jharkhand by order dated 27th September, 2001.
6. Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C.
and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna.
7. The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August,
2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the
Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to
direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or
to proceed against him. The Vigilance Department filed its counter
affidavit thereto.
8. Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003
under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B) I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also
registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC
for giving financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,
Patna.
9. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Patna
High Court and by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2007 the
learned Single Judge quashed the FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002
dared 20th August, 2002 lodged against the 1st respondent and restrained
the petitioner-State of Bihar from proceeding with the case.
10. Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the IAS
Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November, 2000, i.e. the date on which
the Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against
him. Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him will
stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15th November,
2000. In that view of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the lodging of the FIR against him by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau of the State of Bihar is completely without
jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
11. On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was submitted that since
the alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent had taken place
within the State of Bihar while the 1st respondent was still serving State
of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR.
It had been submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as
much as the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he was
serving in the State of Bihar. On this ground it had been argued that there
was no merit in the submission of the 1st respondent.
12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act which came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000. Referring
to provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central
Government the learned Single Judge held that in the present case it is
Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the Vigilance
Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the
matter or to lodge FIR.
13. Before this Court the parties have taken similar pleas as was taken
before the High Court.
14. On perusal of records and on careful consideration of the rival
submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that P.S.
Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002 against the 1st respondent was
maintainable and learned Judge of the High Court was wrong in holding that
the said FIR lodged at Patna, Bihar was not maintainable.
15. So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the Central Government,
which were relied upon by the learned Judge of the High Court is concerned,
we are of the opinion that they are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. For coming to such finding it is
desirable to discuss the relevant provisions of the Reorganisation Act and
Circulars issued by Central Government from time to time.
16. Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act deals with power of Central
Government to give directions to the State Government which reads as
follows:
“Section 76. Power of Central Government to give directions.-
The Central Government may give such directions to the State
Government of Bihar and the State Government of Jharkhand as may
appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to
the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government
shall comply with such directions.”
17. In exercise of power conferred under Section 76 the Central
Government issued a direction dated 28th March, 2002 in which it was
provided that if any vigilance inquiry or investigation is pending against
any Officer of All India Services it will be completed by the authorities
of the State to which he has been allotted. In the aforesaid circular dated
28th March, 2002 a reference has been made to Memorandum No.13013/8/2000-
AIS(I) which is an office memorandum issued by the Government of India
under the subject:- Personnel related issues incident to bifurcation of
States. Paragraph 2 of the said memorandum reads as follows:
“2[a]:- The original service records as well as the CR dossiers
of officers of the All India Services should be in the
custody of the concerned State of which the individual
officer stands allotted. Hence, the service records and CR
dossiers of officers allotted to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh
and Uttaranchal should be transferred to these States.
[b] The custody and conduct of pending disciplinary
proceedings/inquiries in respect of IAS officers belonging
to the new ‘residual States is to be regulated by the
explanation below Rule 7[1][b] of the All India Services
[Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1969 which is as under:-
Explanation – For the purposes of clause [b] of sub rule
[1] where the Government of a State is the authority
competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against a
member of the Service, in the event of a reorganization
after such reorganization of the State. The Government on
whose cadre he is borne after such reorganization shall be
the authority competent to institute disciplinary
proceedings and, subject to the provisions of sub-rule [2],
to impose on him any penalty specified in rule 6.”
18. By another letter No.1 Misc.8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 clarification has
been made regarding the pending proceedings against the AIS Officers
pursuant to bifurcation of the States. In the said letter a reference has
been made to letter No.11018/2/2001-AIS[III] dated 10th July, 2001 in which
the following clarifications have been given:-
“[i] The Government of Jharkhand would be the competent
authority to complete pending vigilance enquiries against
officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has
already been clarified in this Department’s OM No.13013/8/2000-
AIS[I] dated 20.12.2000 [Annexure-20]
[ii] The Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent
authority to take a decision regarding initiation of
disciplinary proceedings or any other action based on the final
report of any vigilance inquiry which may have been initiated by
the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now stands
allocated to Jharkhand cadre.”
19. On behalf of the State of Bihar it was submitted before the High
Court that the dates of the alleged occurrence were prior to the creation
of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, Section 76 of the Reorganisation
Act will make no difference. Moreover, it was contended that the alleged
places of occurrence of the various offences said to have been committed by
the 1st respondent were within the State of Bihar and, therefore, the
Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar will not lose the
jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st respondent. In this connection
counsel on behalf of the State of Bihar drew attention of the Court to
Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act which reads as follows:-
“Section 89. Transfer of pending proceedings – [1] Every
proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a
court [other than the High Court], tribunal, authority or
officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of
Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the
territory, which as from that day is the territory of Jharkhand
State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal,
authority or officer of that State.
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
20. Learned Judge having noticed the aforesaid provisions and circulars
issued by the Central Government observed as follows:
“As stated above with the creation of State of Jharkhand the
services of the petitioner stood transferred to this State with
effect from 15.11.2000. It is clear that on this date the
vigilance inquiry with respect to the Vigilance P.S. Case No.7
of 2002 was pending against the petitioner whose F.I.R.
[Annexure 25] is dated 20.8.2002 filed against the petitioner
and others. This shows that till then the investigation against
the petitioner was pending and the F.I.R. in this regard was
lodged on 20.08.2002 much after the creation of the State of
Jharkhand. The important question that will arise in this
connection would be whether any investigation by the State of
Bihar would have been carried out against an officer of IAS
cadre whose services were transferred/allotted to the State of
Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000 culminating in lodging of
the F.I.R. [Annexure – 25] on 20.08.2007 ? Form what has been
noticed above it is clear that the law does not permit the
Cabinet [Vigilance Department] Government of Bihar to lodge the
F.I.R. against the petitioner on 20.08.2002 when he was already
allotted to the State of Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000
and was born on the I.A.S. cadre of the State. Obviously the
answer to this question would be in negative. From this it would
appear that the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner in
Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 [Annexure -25] was completely
without jurisdiction in view of the letters and the different
orders issued in this regard as noticed above.”
21. Admittedly, the first respondent had not challenged the vigilance
inquiry in the writ petition in question before the High Court of
Judicature at Patna. What was challenged was the FIR lodged against the 1st
respondent as Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002
under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C. and under
Section 13(1(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 qua the 1st respondent.
22. The 1st respondent challenged the vigilance inquiry in the earlier
writ petition bearing Cr. W.J.C. No.7680/1997 in the Patna High Court. That
was disposed of on 25th November, 1997. There was no occasion for the 1st
respondent to challenge the said vigilance inquiry by filing another writ
petition.
23. Part VIII of the Reorganisation Act relates to “provisions as to the
services”. Under Section 76 the Central Government has been empowered to
give such directions to the State Government of Bihar and State Government
of Jharkhand as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving
effect to the provisions of Part VIII and the State Governments are made
bound to comply with such directions. By the clarifications issued from
time to time, as referred to above, State Government on whose cadre the
accused officers were posted after bifurcation was directed to institute
disciplinary proceedings against such officers. By letter dated 10th July,
2001 it was clarified by the Central Government that the State of Jharkhand
would be the competent authority to complete pending vigilance inquires
against officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already
been clarified in this Department’s Office Memorandum dated 20th December,
2000.
24. From the aforesaid circulars issued from time to time it is clear
that the circulars aforesaid related to the Departmental Inquiry and
Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to lodging of FIR
against an officer of either State at one or other place. Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has nothing to do
with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter of challenge to an FIR
(quashing of FIR), neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central Government, as
noticed by the High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to the provisions
of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central Government
for holding the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar.
25. The allegations are related to the period 12th May, 1994 to 1st June,
1996 when the 1st respondent was posted at Patna, Bihar as Managing
Director of the BSFC, therefore, on behalf of the appellant it was rightly
submitted that since the alleged commission of offences by the 1st
respondent has taken place in State of Bihar while he was serving the
State, it will have jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st respondent and
to lodge FIR at Patna.
26. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent also raised the question of
legality of the FIR, in view of the order passed by the Patna High Court
and Jharkhand High Court from time to time.
27. Under Section 76, the Central Government is empowered to give such
directions to the State Government of Bihar and State Government Jharkhand,
for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Bihar
Reorganisation Act, the State Government is bound to comply with such
directions. By letter No.1 Misc. 8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 issued by the
Central Government clarification has been made regarding the pending
proceedings against the AIS officers pursuant to bifurcation of States. In
the said letter a reference has been made to letter No.11018/2/2001-
AIS[III] dated 10th July, 2001 in which it was clarified by the Central
Government that the Government of Jharkhand would be the competent
authority to complete pending vigilance inquiries against the officers who
stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already clarified by the
Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated 20th December, 2000. The
Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent authority to take a
decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other
action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have
been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.
28. In view of the aforesaid circular dated 20th December, 2000 and by
letter dated 10th July, 2001 read with Section 76 of the Reorganisation
Act, vigilance inquiry which was initiated against the 1st respondent by
the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar prior to reorganisation of
the State i.e. 15th November, 2000, should have been transferred to the
Vigilance Department of the State of Jharkhand, as the 1st respondent was
allocated cadre of Jharkhand and was posted under the Government of
Jharkhand. Therefore, it is rightly contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that in view of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS
cadre of the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceases to have a jurisdiction to investigate against
the 1st respondent.
29. The 1st respondent had challenged the inquiry before the Patna High
Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.7680 of 1997. The said
case was disposed of with certain observations. Having not complied with, a
contempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.1498 of 1998 was filed by the 1st
respondent in the Patna High Court. It was also disposed of on 29th
November, 1999 with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8
months, subject to grant of extension. Order dated 29th November, 1999 is
quoted hereunder:
“In pursuance of Court’s order, Mr. Arvind Prasad,
Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are present in the
Court with relevant file.
It appears that the Vigilance Department submitted report
in favour of petitioner wherein the Chief Secretary ordered to
obtain opinion from the Vigilance Commissioner; petitioner and
thereafter from Law Department. After receiving the opinion of
the Vigilance Commissioner; reply of petitioner, the matter was
forwarded to the Law Department, which recommended to remand the
matter to the Vigilance Department for further inquiry on
certain facts. In view of such remand, the Vigilance Department
is holding further inquiry in respect of allegations as were
made against the petitioner.
The Vigilance Commissioner states that the further inquiry
will be concluded within six months and report will be submitted
to the Government within the aforesaid period.
On behalf of the State, the Secretary, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department states that final decision
would be taken by the State by Vigilance Department within two
months thereof.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of processing
against the opposite parties, I allow them further time to
conclude the vigilance inquiry and to pass final order thereof
within eight months from today, on failure the said proceeding
will stand quashed on the ground of non-compliance of the
Court’s order.
However, it will be open to the appropriate authority to
ask for more time, on genuine ground. The appearance of Mr.
Arvind Prasad, Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are
dispensed with.
The M.J.C. application stands disposed of.”
30. Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was not
completed within 8 months as directed by the High Court. Having not
completed the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High
Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-compliance
of Court’s order.
31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st respondent based on the
Vigilance Inquiry which stood quashed. Therefore, in view of finding
recorded above, we hold that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by
State of Bihar was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High
Court.
32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
……………………………………………………………………………J.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 9, 2014.
