JUDGMENT B. B. Mangalmurti, J. - Heard learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the A.C.B. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the accused persons including this petitioner for additional payment of amount relating to the contract, but there was no role of the petitioner as at the relevant time he was working as Bill Clerk. He further submitted that as per the Letter No. 248 dated 10th May, 2008 of Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Daltonganj for lodgment of the case against the erring officers and staff. In the same letter he has not found the petitioner liable and requested for reconsideration of his matter by the Authority. 3. Learned senior counsel also submitted that as per the assigned work this petitioner was to prepare bill of the contractor on the basis of the Measurement Book and other relevant papers as well as details of previous payment. The measurement books are normally verified by the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer certified those measurement of work. On this documentary information, the Bills are generally prepared. This petitioner was not given any information regarding previous payment but this Bill was also placed before the higher Authorities for its sanction, but on that stage this fact was not taken into account and after passing of the Bill, payment was made to the contractor. 4. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that the matter relates to the road construction and over payment was made. He also submitted that the matter was enquired into by the Technical Evaluation Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department, Government of Jharkhand, who found that without entering into the agreement additional amount of Rs. 9,59,166/- was paid to the contractor Bipin Bihari Singh in which Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Divisional Account Officer, Cashier and this petitioner Kalindra Singh working as Bill Clerk were also held responsible. 5. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that now the Court below has framed charge upon the accused person including this petitioner on 05th August, 2017. 6. In view of the above submission and on consideration of the papers attached with this application, it appears that charge has already been framed against this petitioner, therefore, instant application is disposed of with liberty to raise all these points before the Court below at appropriate stage.