ORDER : D. Dash, J. 1. The petitioner by filing this revision has called in question, the legality and propriety of an order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R.(V) Case No. 21 of 2013. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner (accused) with the prayer for his discharge in the case of commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and his wife (the other accused). It is his submission that the vigilance authority having received information against the wife of the petitioner who is a public servant and having directed investigation in that light that she was in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income, have unnecessarily arraigned this petitioner who is serving as a teacher. According to him, without any investigation as to if this petitioner is in possession of assets disproportionate to his income from known sources, by amalgamating his assets with the assets of his wife, both have been charge sheeted. He therefore, submits that this petitioner ought to have been discharged. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance submits that upon proper investigation and collection of materials as to the income of both the accused persons from their known sources of income and on assessment of value of the total assets in their hands, it having been ascertained that the assets in their possession are disproportionate to their income from known sources; the Court below is right in passing the order rejecting the petition for discharge of this petitioner. 5. Keeping in view, the submission made, the impugned order being perused; it is seen that here both the accused persons who are husband and wife are public servants. During investigation, income of both from known sources during the check period having been taken into account, the total assets in their hands have been valued and the value of the disproportionate asset is said to be 46.28% of their income from all known sources. During investigation, income of both from known sources during the check period having been taken into account, the total assets in their hands have been valued and the value of the disproportionate asset is said to be 46.28% of their income from all known sources. The Court below thus at the stage of consideration of framing charge, finding no such materials on record in providing satisfactory account of the above, in my considered view has committed no such illegality in passing the order that a prima facie case for the above noted offences stand against the petitioner for being charged so as to face the trial. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.