Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 373 (PAT)

Lakshmi Roy v. State of Bihar

2005-03-30

body2005
ORDER This application is directed against the order dated 1.3.2005 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., North Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 23 of 1997 -RC case No. 43 of 1997 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120-B. 420, 468, 471. 193, 196, 201 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The factual matrix for disposal of the present case is that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Principal of the Regional Institute of Technology (R.I.T.), Jamshedpur. This case relates to Combined Engineering Entrance Examination (in short hereinafter referred to as (CEEE), 1996 conducted by Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology (MIT), co-convenor and convenor respectively Shri RC. Das 'Vikal' and Kameshwar Prasad of MIT The said examination was held on 30.6.1996 and the result was published on 2.8.1996. 3. Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the examination on the ground that manipulations and bunglings have been done by the convenor and co-convenor along with the Minister, Science and Technology Department and other members associated with the examination. This Court disposed of the writ applications being C.W.J.C. Nos. 7666, 7779 and 8122 of 1996 cancelled the examination and directed the C.B.I. to enquire into the matter. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Principal of RIT, Jamshedpur and he was also associated with the examination. The C.B.I. proceeded with the investigation and found deep rooted conspiracy of the petitioner and others which resulted into unfair means adopted in getting the candidates successful in the examination. After investigation, the C.B.I submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and others and cognizance was taken on 19.10.2001 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others. The same was challenged by the petitioner in this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33510 of 2001 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court finally on 6.9.2002 and the Court came to the conclusion that the sanction was not properly granted. In the concluding portion of this judgment this Court held that sanction for prosecution has been granted by the Chairman of the Board of Governors which is not competent to sanction prosecution and accordingly the order of cognizance was quashed. In the concluding portion of this judgment this Court held that sanction for prosecution has been granted by the Chairman of the Board of Governors which is not competent to sanction prosecution and accordingly the order of cognizance was quashed. Thereafter, it appears that the C.B.I obtained a fresh sanction from the Board of Governors of RIT now NIT, Jamshedpur in terms of the rules of the institute which granted sanction for prosecution and the order of sanction was issued under the signature of the Chairman dated 29.12.2004 and thereafter the C.B.I. after obtaining approval of the State Government and the Central Government as per rules submitted a fresh chargesheet on 22.2.2005 on the basis of which cognizance has been taken. 4. Before proceeding to discuss the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner it will be useful to mention that RIT, Jamshedpur now NIT is governed by a Society known as Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur as per terms and Memorandum of Association and' rules contained in annexure 7 It has framed rules which is known as Regional Institute of Technology Jamshedpur Society Rules and the rule provides for constitution of a society consisting of Chairman and other members. Rule 6 provides for constitution of a Board consisting of the nominees of the State Government, Central Government and others. Rule 15 contains the provision with regard to powers and function of the Board and sub-rule (ix) empowers the Board to appoint and control the staff of the Institute. Rule 18 provides that it shall be the duty of the Chairman to see that the decisions of the Board are implemented and the Chairman shall exercise such other powers as may be delegated to him by the Board. Rule 19 provides that the Principal shall be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Central Government and the State Government. The bye-laws contains the terms and conditions of service of permanent employees of the Institute which was provided to be incorporated in the bye-laws provided inter-alia that the order of dismissal shall be passed by the authority by which a person was appointed after following the procedure as mentioned therein. It also contains a provision for an appeal against the order of punishment. It also contains a provision for an appeal against the order of punishment. The conjoint reading of all the provisions as contained in annexure 7, make it clear that the NIT is a Society and Board of Directors is the appointing as well as dismissing authority of the Principal subject to approval of the State Government and the Central Government. 5. It is also to be mentioned that the State Government framed a rule by a resolution in 1991 and the rule is known as Combined Engineering Entrance Examination Rule 1991, a copy of this Rule has been annexed as annexure 2 to the petition. According to the relevant provision of the said rule a Committee has to be constituted for conducting the examination consisting of the five members of the Colleges in rotation including the RIT, Jamshedpur now NIT. In pursuance of that rule the petitioner was also associated with the examination which was held in 1996. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of cognizance is vitiated on the ground that there is nothing on the record to show that the Board of Directors before granting sanction has taken the approval of the State Government and the Central Government which is a condition precedent for appointment of a Principal and in this connection he drew my attention to the impugned order. The order passed by the Special Judge has not been happily worded but from the chargesheet which has been annexed as annexure 13, it is clear that after obtaining sanction from the Board of Governors (earlier Board of Directors) the same was sent to the State of Jharkhand in which State the Institute falls and the Government of India and the same was approved by the State of Jharkhand and the Central Government and thereafter the chargesheet was submitted. In this connection it is relevant to quote the exact words used in the chargesheet which is as follows: "In this connection fresh sanction for prosecution against Shri lakshmi Roy from the competent authority i.e. the Board of Governors, RIT duly approved by the Govt. of Jharkhand and the Govt. of India has been obtained now and this fresh chargesheet against Shri lakshmi Roy, the then Principal. of Jharkhand and the Govt. of India has been obtained now and this fresh chargesheet against Shri lakshmi Roy, the then Principal. RIT (now NIT), Jamshedpur is being filed." Though in the order of sanction the Chairman has not mentioned these words specifically but when the chargesheet mentioned it then at this stage there is no reason to doubt the assertion made in the chargesheet and as such the defect which was pointed out by this Court in the earlier chargesheet has been rectified and thereafter cognizance has been taken. Thus, on the ground urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner the order of cognizance cannot be faulted. 7. Another submission which was raised by counsel for the petitioner was that the competent authority to grant approval is the State of Bihar and not the State of Jharkhand. I may clarify at this stage that the petitioner was not an employee of the State of Bihar rather he was an employee of RIT, Jamshedpur a registered Society. The question as to whether in such a case sanction is required cannot be gone into at this stage when this Court has earlier held that sanction is required from the competent authority of RIT, Jamshedpur. The petitioner by virtue of being an employee of RIT was entrusted with the work of conducting examination in terms of 1991 Rules and the authority competent to remove or dismiss him is RIT, Jamshedpur and not the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar in two States now the institute falls within the State of Jharkhand and as such when the rules provide for approval by the State Government the State of Jharkhand is the competent authority to grant approval so far as RIT is concerned. So far the sanction to be granted by the State of Bihar is concerned, that question does not arise at all for the reason that the petitioner at no point of time was an employee of the State of Bihar. 8. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Sharma Vs. State (Delhi Administration): AIR 1975 S.C. 899 where a clerk in Central Secretariat borne at the cadre of Community Development and Co-operation was temporarily appointed in the Rationing Department. 8. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Sharma Vs. State (Delhi Administration): AIR 1975 S.C. 899 where a clerk in Central Secretariat borne at the cadre of Community Development and Co-operation was temporarily appointed in the Rationing Department. A point was raised that the sanction given by the Community Development and Co-operation Department was invalid as the sanction should have been given by the Rationing Department. Repelling the submission the Apex Court held that when the permanent employee was of the Community Development and Co-operation Department, the Deputy Secretary, Government of India was the competent authority to accord sanction and not the officer of the Rationing Department. Thus, both the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of any substance. 9. In the result, this application is dismissed.