GANGA PRASAD BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad and Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ. Challenge in this writ petition is the Semi Government letter dated 30. 11. 2004 No. Sa. Aa. /anu.-2-Aa-238/98 (Annexure 7) which is a report, which has been submitted by Dr. Ram lal Ram, by which he has recommended the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC and section 13 (1) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The said recommendation is based on the detailed inquiry, which was conducted by the Vigilance Department running into various pages. A perusal of the impugned Annexure indicates that by entering into criminal conspiracy and misusing their official power various accused persons of Schools and Post Offices in conspiracy with District Minority Welfare Officer and other persons committed embezzlement of more than Rs. Two crores and have illegally squindled said amount. Annexure No. 7 is voluminous and is a detailed document running into various paragraphs and therefore we take the case of Ganga Prasad Bhaskar, the petitioner only.

(2.) IN his respect it is alleged that the petitioner along with the other co-accused Narendra Kumar, Ram Das, Pancham Singh, Suresh Babu Rathor, Ramesh Chandra Assistant Post Master, Radhey Shyam Rathor, Assistant Post Master, Head Post Office, Firozabad and M. lal, M. P. Srivastava, both District Minority Welfare Officers, Shishu Pal Singh the then employee of Vetkala Government Training Centre Firozabad, Ram Krishna, the then, Assistant Teacher, Government Juvenile Home Firozabad, Pratap Singh, the then, Education Officer Firozabad and Durbeen Singh Assistant Education Officer Firozabad conspired and by ignoring the rules and regulations, illegally, opened the account in the name of fake INstitutions, and misappropriated millions of rupees of scholarship scheme meant for minority students. The complicity of the petitioner is disclosed in the report of the Vigilance Department at page 98 vide para 2310.

(3.) SRI J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned the allegations against him are that of opening of the account in the Post Office. He further submitted that the petitioner was Assistant Post-Master in the Post Office and no criminality can be attached to his act done in an official capacity in discharge of his duties in absence of any mensrea and consequently impugned report be quashed. SRI Sengar further contended that from the report against the petitioner, at the worst, what can be alleged, to indicate that there was dereliction of duty on his part in opening of the account therefore the petition be allowed and the impugned report be quashed.