VINDHESHWARI PRASAD KHARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a former employee of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur respondent No.7 herein, who stood terminated on account of proven misconduct from the said Bank with effect from 6-9-2011 and facing criminal trial for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 of the IPC pursuant to the FIR registered under Crime No.946/2011. The petitioner herein first filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 75/2013 (Vindeshwari Prasad Khare v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before the Supreme Court of India seeking the reliefs claimed herein, but their Lordships declined to entertain the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to move this Court to vindicate his grievance in accordance with law.

(2.) Now, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner on 19- 12-2013 stating inter alia that the petitioner was an officer of the bank and he has made several complaints to the Economic Offences Wing, Central Vigilance Commission, Income Tax Department and Reserve Bank of India against respondent No.5 who was the Chairman of respondent No.7 Bank at that particular time, but no action was taken against him and on account of his illegal act, the petitioner is suffering at his hands for daring to disobey his illegal instructions and publishing and bringing his corrupt practices to the fore and to the knowledge of the higher authorities. It was further pleaded that respondent No.5 has committed corrupt practice in purchase of car, Sutli and furniture and also committed irregularities in transferring employees on account of which the State Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur has registered a preliminary enquiry on 6-9-2011 under Preliminary Enquiry No.26/2011 against respondent No.5 and Shri D.C. Thakre, Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, who is also respondent No.6 herein and the said EOW has informed to the State Government on 6-9-2011 after registering preliminary enquiry against the said respondents. The petitioner has finally prayed after detailing the allegations of corruption that an appropriate writ or direction be issued either directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be constituted to investigate the corruption and malpractices of respondent No.5 and his accomplices or in order to have reliable and trustworthy information, a direction be issued directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a free and fair investigation and the respondent State be directed to handover all the complaints and investigation pending against respondent No.5 and his accomplices to the CBI.

(3.) The respondent State and the EOW (respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 11) have filed their reply (on 23-12-2014) stating inter alia that the main allegation of the petitioner relates to the alleged malpractice and alleged corruption on the part of respondent No.5 and other private respondents, therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to file private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the writ petition as framed and filed directly approaching this Court without availing the aforesaid remedy, is not maintainable. It has also been stated clearly that because of the disciplinary action taken by respondent No.5 against the petitioner, the petitioner in a personal grudge has alleged against respondent No.5 regarding malpractice and corruption. All the purchases and works have been done after due sanction of the purchase committee of the Bank. It has finally been stated that the investigation has been conducted by the State and its agencies, but till date, no evidence was found about the cognizable offence allegedly committed by respondent No.5 and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.