JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.02.2015 by which the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 109, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Special Case No. 9(A)/1995 [Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995] and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of said case as against the petitioner. 3. The prosecution case as it appears from the First Information Report is that between the financial years 1988 – 89, 1989 – 90 and 1990 – 91, bungling, forgery and misappropriation of the property had taken place in purchase of pesticides – Aldrine Dust and Aldrex 30. There was direction by the Forest and Environmental Department, then Government of Bihar to purchase pesticides and for that different Forest Divisions within the State were authorised. It was detected that M/s. Krishi Vikas Bhandar, Manpur, Gaya, M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa and M/s. Allied Agro Chemicals Industries, Deoghar had furnished tender and succeeded to obtain supply order and realised the amount from the concerned Department. As a matter of fact no such Firm named above were in existence and it were represented by false and fictitious persons. Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Patna had lodged a voluminous F.I.R. 4. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner is concerned with the purchase made by Hazaribgh Afforestation Division. Due to involvement of petitioner and other accused, the Government has sustained loss of Rs.12,23,000/- against the purchase of pesticides alleged to have been made by Hazaribagh Afforestation Division and name of concerned Firm is M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa. 5. Since case of the petitioner is limited to the extent of purchases made by Hazaribagh Afforestation Division and the Firm M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa, I do not feel it desirable to reproduce the entire prosecution case as it appears in the written report. 6. The petitioner was an I.F.S. Officer and he was attached with the Hazaribagh Afforestation Division. In the year 1988, the petitioner along with others committed bungling by facilitating monetary benefits to accused Arun Kumar Murarka alleged to be proprietor of a fake and non existing firm -M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa. 6. The petitioner was an I.F.S. Officer and he was attached with the Hazaribagh Afforestation Division. In the year 1988, the petitioner along with others committed bungling by facilitating monetary benefits to accused Arun Kumar Murarka alleged to be proprietor of a fake and non existing firm -M/s. Gramin Vikas Kendra, Sadar Bazar, Chaibasa. The Vigilance Department found that the petitioner was a Member of the Purchase Committee in the year 1987 – 88 and he along with other Government officials, in connivance with the proprietor of said fake firm, flouted the prescribed Rules by accepting and signing the comparative tender chart and also by approving the lowest rate submitted by said fake firm and, thereby, siphoning the revenue and caused wrongful loss to the Forest and Environment Department/ State Exchequer. 7. On the basis of detailed written report lodged by the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patna, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. 8. The investigation was carried out and sanction for prosecution granted by the State Government was obtained vide order dated 05.10.2004. For obtaining sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, relevant documents and evidences were forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest, after examining the documents, evidence and records, refused to grant sanction against the petitioner. Thereafter, the S.P., Vigilance, has given opinion and suggested to submit final form against the petitioner but the D.I.G. Vigilance, State of Jharkhand did not agree with the suggestions and recommendations and directed to file chargesheet only for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code because no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act was accorded by the Central Government. Accordingly, chargesheet was submitted and the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, by order dated 10.02.2015, has taken cognizance against the petitioner. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of cognizance and criminal prosecution launched against him, has preferred the present Cr.M.P. on the following grounds:- (i) It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed after passing the examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1984. 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of cognizance and criminal prosecution launched against him, has preferred the present Cr.M.P. on the following grounds:- (i) It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed after passing the examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1984. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the order of the President of India and, therefore, he can be removed from the post only with the approval of Central Government. He has undertaken training for about three years at Dehradun and Mussorie. In the year 1988, few months prior to the incident, as a probationer in the Indian Forest Service, he was attached with the Hazaribagh Afforestation Division. The petitioner was never inducted as a Member in the Purchase Committee rather on the date i.e. 10.03.1988, a meeting of the Purchase Committee was going on in which District Industry Officer, Hazaribagh was absent. To complete the quorum on that very date, the petitioner was nominated as a Member of the Committee and as such, he had signed the Minutes (Annexure-2 of the counter affidavit, dated 10.06.2015). In the said Meeting, comparative price chart was prepared in which Gramin Vikas Kendra, Chaibasa had given lowest rate against supply of Aldrin Dust. (ii) It was submitted besides signing on said Minutes of the Meeting, the petitioner was not at all involved in any manner in the purchase procedure adopted by other officials. There was no mens rea because the petitioner was unknown about the bidder and the process adopted by the Purchase Committee. The petitioner being I.F.S. Probationer, attached with Hazaribagh Afforestation Division, was present in the office at the time of alleged meeting of the Purchase Committee and he was suggested to put signature to fulfill quorum of the Committee, which he did innocently. There is no mens rea that the petitioner was intending to misuse his power and position for providing benefits to a fake person against fake purchase of pesticides. Simply because of appearing in the Meeting of the Purchase Committee, he could not be made liable for his prosecution for the offences for which cognizance has been taken against him. (iii) The learned counsel has referred Annexure-3, Page-77 of the petition by which the Central Government has refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (iii) The learned counsel has referred Annexure-3, Page-77 of the petition by which the Central Government has refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The concluding para-4 and 5 of the aforesaid order have been referred, which reads as under:- “4. Therefore, the Central Government after perusal of the documents and records related to the case as furnished by the Government of Jharkhand and after fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case is not satisfied that prima-facie case is made out against Shri P. Pugalendi for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198. 5. Accordingly, the Central Government do hereby refuse sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the said Shri P. Pugalendi, IFS (JH 1984) for the reasons stated above. 6. However, the Central Government is of the opinion that proceedings for imposition of Minor Penalty under Rule 10 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 may be initiated against Shri P.Pugalendi, IFS for the acts committed by him as a member of the Purchase Committee and advise the Government of Jharkhand accordingly. By referring aforesaid decision of the Central Government, it was submitted that in the opinion of Central Government, the petitioner may be liable to be imposed minor penalty under Rule 10 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. In view of the Order given by the Central Government, it is apparent that the petitioner is not at all liable for his prosecution on the materials available on record. In this context the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment reported in (2013) 1 SCC 205 . (iv) The next point on which the learned counsel has relied upon the Note Sheet given by the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, appearing at Annexure-4, Page-80. It appears from the Note Sheet that after consultation with the Advocate General, it was recommended to submit final form, mistake of fact against the petitioner but the then D.I.G. Vigilance, without assigning valid reason, has directed to file chargesheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the Note Sheet that after consultation with the Advocate General, it was recommended to submit final form, mistake of fact against the petitioner but the then D.I.G. Vigilance, without assigning valid reason, has directed to file chargesheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The submission of chargesheet at the instruction of D.I.G. Vigilance was unwarranted and the learned Special Judge should not have taken cognizance against the petitioner even for the offences which are punishable under the Indian Penal code. (v) It was further submitted that the Departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which he was exonerated, which is apparent from Annexure-7 at Pages-87 to 89. Annexure-8 at Page-90 is the Notification by which the petitioner has been exonerated by the Order of the Governor of Jharkhand. In this connection the learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment reported in the case of P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 . (vi) The learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment reported in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 that the materials collected by the Investigating Officer and placed on the record even if taken to be correct, no offence against the petitioner is made out. In view of submission made above, the impugned order of cognizance dated 10.02.2015 and entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner in connection with Special Case No. 9(A)/1995 [Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995] may be quashed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner had participated in the meeting of the Purchase Committee and he had signed the Minutes. It is apparent from the detailed F.I.R. that fake Firms represented by fake persons on the basis of fake documents, had participated in the Purchase proceeding, obtained order, realised money without supplying anything and caused huge loss to the exchequer of Forest and Environment Department of the Government. The prosecution must be given opportunity to adduce evidence to prove charges levelled against the petitioner and other accused persons. The prosecution must be given opportunity to adduce evidence to prove charges levelled against the petitioner and other accused persons. In such a case in which the Government has sustained huge loss and fake persons have been benefited due to involvement of the Government officers, the cognizance and the prosecution launched against the accused persons should not be quashed. 11. I have gone through the documents and materials placed before me and also considered the Judgments cited above. The petitioner has been prosecuted and chargesheeted only because he had appeared in the Meeting of the Purchase Committee held on 10.03.1988. He was opted as a Member at the spot when the District Industry Officer was absent. It is apparent that the petitioner was not inducted as a Member in the Purchase Committee prior to the date on which he was opted as a Member at the spot and suggested to sign the Minutes to fulfill the quorum. That clearly suggests that he was unaware about the process which was going on before for purchasing pesticides like Aldrine Dust and Aldrex 30. Therefore, the question that he was in league with the parties from before, does not arise at all. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Central Government has refused to accord sanction for his prosecution for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act rather suggested to put him under minor punishment as per Rule. 12. As argued above that the S.P. Vigilance, after consulting Advocate General, had recommended to submit final form stating mistake of fact against present petitioner but the D.I.G. Vigilance, without assigning any reason, had directed to file chargesheet, has got force because no reason has been assigned by the D.I.G. in the said order. The prosecution has not collected further materials except the Minutes of the Meeting signed by the petitioner to connect him with the offence alleged. 13. Before coming to the conclusion, it is also to be looked into that the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceeding and he has not been found guilty. 14. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter and also relying on the Judgments cited above, I find that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner on the materials available on record does not appear to be permissible. 15. 14. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter and also relying on the Judgments cited above, I find that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner on the materials available on record does not appear to be permissible. 15. In the result, the order of cognizance dated 10.02.2015 by which the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 109, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Special Case No. 9(A)/1995 [Vigilance P.S. Case No. 16 of 1995] as against the petitioner, stands quashed. So far the order of cognizance and criminal prosecution of other accused are concerned, that shall remain in force. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. Petition allowed.