JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of the letter contained in letter no.1609 dated 04.08.2016 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Cabinet, Vigilance Department whereby a decision has been taken by the State Government to re-open/re-investigate Preliminary Enquiry No.11/2014 and Preliminary Enquiry No.12/2015. 4. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that erstwhile Vigilance Bureau now Anti-Corruption Bureau had issued a letter dated 29.05.2014 addressed to the present petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish complete income and expenditure account pertaining to the petitioner in relation to a Preliminary Enquiry registered as P.E.No.11/2014 at the time during the check period i.e. from appointment date till 2014 when the petitioner was posted as District Engineer. The petitioner was further directed to furnish a consolidated income chart along with list of places and posts on which the petitioner was posted. He submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted and no case of disproportionate asset was made out against the petitioner and the enquiry report was submitted on 23.07.2014. He further submits that a supervision report dated 14.07.2014 was also made by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau wherein it has been stated that the charge of disproportionate asset against the petitioner was not found by the supervisory report dated 23.07.2014. A recommendation by letter dated 05.02.2015 was made by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau in a form of re-examination of enquiry report to the Joint Secretary, Cabinet, Vigilance Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby it was recommended that the charge of disproportionate asset against the petitioner is not found. The another recommendation dated 02.06.2015 in a form of an opinion was made by the then Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau who has also recommended for closure of Preliminary Enquiry No.11/2014. He submits that by letter dated 28.07.2015 the matter was directed to be closed against the petitioner which was having approval of the then Chief Minister. The another recommendation dated 02.06.2015 in a form of an opinion was made by the then Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau who has also recommended for closure of Preliminary Enquiry No.11/2014. He submits that by letter dated 28.07.2015 the matter was directed to be closed against the petitioner which was having approval of the then Chief Minister. By letter No.1609 dated 04.08.2016 the authorities have directed to re-investigate/re-open the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner as well as the other authorities who conducted the enquiry earlier and exonerated the petitioner. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned letter dated 04.08.2016 on the ground that there is no material on the record to come to that conclusion as to how the re-investigation and re-opening of the enquiry has been directed. He submits that it is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that in the supplementary affidavit he has answered the details of Income-Tax of the petitioner. 5. Mr. P.C. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State draws the attention of the Court to paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State and submits that in the reply to letter no.399 dated 02.03.2016 the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi vide its letter no.6706 dated 27.06.2016 has stated that the earlier reports for closure of the enquiry was re-examined thoroughly and based on its findings requested to re-open P.E.No.11/2014 and merge it with the current enquiry P.E.No.12/2015. The grounds for permission to re-open P.E.-11/2014 are given in the report annexed with the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s letter No.6706 dated 27.06.2016. The said letter is annexed as Annexure-I to the said counter affidavit. 6. On perusal of the said report contained at Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, it transpires that it has been issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau. On perusal of this, it comes out that along with this letter a detailed enquiry report is annexed and on perusal of that report, it is crystal clear that there are materials against the petitioner. By letter dated 04.08.2016, by which re-opening of the enquiry against the petitioner has been directed, a direction has also been issued by that letter to fix the responsibility against the persons who have exonerated the petitioner on the earlier occasion. By letter dated 04.08.2016, by which re-opening of the enquiry against the petitioner has been directed, a direction has also been issued by that letter to fix the responsibility against the persons who have exonerated the petitioner on the earlier occasion. Prima facie, it appears that the enquiry report was obtained in connivance with the concerned officers who exonerated the petitioner earlier and they have been directed to be implicated by the said letter which is annexed in this petition. 7. As there is material on the record, and the responsibility against the persons who have exonerated the petitioner has also been directed to be fixed, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and, accordingly, the instant petition [W.P.(Cr.) No.219 of 2016] is dismissed. 8. Interim order dated 12.08.2016 stands vacated. 9. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.