Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed the instant application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Vigilance Case No. 29 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 29 of 2010 under Sections 420/ 406/ 409/ 201/ 120-B/ 467/ 468/ 471/109 of the I.P.C. read with 13 (1) (c) (d) of the P. C. Act, 1988. against the petitioner which is pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance) at Ranchi. 3. Mr.R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. which can constitute any offence against her. He has further submitted that it is alleged in the F.I.R. against the petitioner that while she was functioning as D.S.E, Deoghar, issued a number of transfer orders of the teachers without taking approval of the establishment committee and it is also alleged that she has committed irregularities in regularization, suspension, promotion and in. fixation of pay scale of teachers of the primary schools and middie schools. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was posted at Deoghar as D.S.E from 17.11.1998 to 4.5.2001 and worked diligently in accordance with the rules and regulation of the Government. The Education Secretary, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 5.6.2000 issued certain directions in relation to closed school and the school in which only one teacher is available. In the said letter, there was specific direction to hold the meeting of establishment committee on 24.6.2000 and complete the process according to the direction given in the said letter dated 5.6.2000. The meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee was convened on 24.6.2000 as per the direction of the aforesaid letter dated 5.6.2000 under the Presidentship of Deputy 90mmissioner in which other officers such as DOC Deoghar, DEO Deoghar, DSE Deoghar (petitioner). DIS Dumka were present in the meeting and the Establishment Committee asked the DSE to issue office order as per the decision taken by the Establishment Committee. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar intimated to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide letter dat.1d 26.6.2000 that decision was taken regarding transfer and posting at 35 closed schools and 94 schools in which only one teacher is available. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar intimated to the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide letter dat.1d 26.6.2000 that decision was taken regarding transfer and posting at 35 closed schools and 94 schools in which only one teacher is available. So far as 76 schools in which two teachers were available, it was decided to post those teachers who were selected by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the -petitioner being a DSE, Deoghar issued office order regarding transfer and posting of teachers as per the direction of letter dated 5.6.2000 and the decision of the Establishment Committee. Therefore, the transfer orders issued by her, cannot be treated as issued individually by the petitioner merely because she has signed the order as shown in the F.I.R. To support of the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner has annexed a number of documents in this petition as annexures. 5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Mr.T.N.Verma has submitted that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Mr.Verma has further submitted that though the petitioner has annexed a number of documents in the writ petition but at this stage, the said documents annexed before this Court cannot be taken into consideration. In this contest Mr. Verma has cited a decision reported in (2005)1 S.C.C. 568 where the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi has held:- "The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, (1996)9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence." (Paras 23, 8, 27 and 18) 6. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence." (Paras 23, 8, 27 and 18) 6. Mr.Verma has cited another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (14) SCC 497 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Laxmi Dhaul, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- Para 3- "Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to examine the matter and quash the police investigation, which was pending against the respondent Laxmi Dhaul." Therefore, the investigation and the F.I.R. should not be quashed against the petitioner at present. 7. I find from the F.I.R. that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner alongwith few other co-accused and there are number of irregularities and illegalities in regularization, suspension, promotion, transfer and even in fixation of pay scale of teachers of primary schools and the middle schools. 8. Further considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any reason to quash the F.I.R. at this stage or to interfere with the investigation at this stage. Accordingly. this Cr.M.P application is. hereby, dismissed.c