Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 272 (JHR)

Suresh Mishra v. State of Bihar

2012-02-22

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J.- This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.12.1999 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Seraikella in Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 26 of 1995 corresponding to G.R. No. 295 of 1995, whereby application of petitioner filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected and petitioner was directed to remain physically present in the Court for framing of charge. 2. It is alleged that petitioner (Suresh Mishra) passed award in favour of Prabhat Kumar Adityadeo and Pratap Kumar Adityadeo with respect to a Government pond situated on a land pertaining to khata No. 213 plot No. 452. It is stated that said plot recorded in the record of rights as gairmazarua-aam. It is further alleged that on the basis of award passed by petitioner aforesaid two co-accused received Rs. 17,64,047.18/- Paisa as compensation. 3. It is submitted by Sri K.M. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that for the same charge a departmental enquiry also initiated against petitioner (Suresh Mishra) and Commissioner South Chhotanagpur Division Ranchi appointed enquiry officer. It is submitted the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry repeat and he exonerated petitioner from the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that their Lordships of Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 , has held that if a public servant is exonerated in a departmental proceeding in respect of certain charge, he cannot be prosecuted in criminal Court in respect of same charge. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner is entitled to be discharged by criminal Court. 4. On the other hand Shree Prakash Jha, learned Additional PP, submits that from perusal of Annexure-3 it is clear that Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Division Ranchi only made recommendation that petitioner could be exonerated from the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that no final order passed by the State Government by which aforesaid recommendation accepted by it and petitioner exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thus, aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court will not apply in this case. 5. Having heard the submissions. I have gone through the record of the case. It is submitted that no final order passed by the State Government by which aforesaid recommendation accepted by it and petitioner exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thus, aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court will not apply in this case. 5. Having heard the submissions. I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of first information report I find that at the relevant time, petitioner was appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1 Subernrekha Project, Mango, Jamshedpur and, he in that capacity passed an award in favour of co-accused Prabhat Kumar Adityadeo and Pratap Kumar Adityadeo in relation to a Government pond situated on a land pertaining to khnta No. 213 plot No. 452. It further appears that on the basis of aforesaid award, said accused Prabhat Kumar Adityadeo and Pratap Kumar Adityadeo received Rs. 17,64,047.18/- paise. It is alleged that aforesaid accused persons not entitled for said compensation amount. But they illegally received aforesaid amount only because petitioner passed award in their favour. Thus acts and omissions of the petitioner caused loss to the State Exchequer. 6. It appears from Annexure-3 that a departmental proceeding also initiated against petitioner for the same charge. In the said departmental proceeding, Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division Ranchi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Division Ranchi submitted his enquiry report on 27.05.1979, in which he recommended that charge against petitioner may be dropped. There is nothing on record to show that recommendation of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division was accepted by the State Government. Under the said circumstance, I find that no final order passed in the departmental proceeding. It is well settled that a disciplinary authority has power to accept or reject recommendation of Enquiry Officer. Thus, unless any final order passed in the departmental proceeding it cannot be held that petitioner exonerated in the departmental enquiry from the charges levelled against him. In that view of the matter, law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (supra) is not applicable in this case. 7. In view of the discussions made above. I find no merit in this application. Same is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.