MD FAROOQUE AZAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of a State Government employee, an Assistant Engineer, with the Water Resources Department, Govt, of Bihar.

(2.) THE petition had been filed for the purposes of quashing the order of 15 September, 1993 appended as annexure 1 to the writ petition. This is the order by which the petitioner was suspended in pursuance of departmental proceedings and during the period of suspension was not entitled to anything except the subsistence allowance. Secondly, he was to be placed at the bottom of his scale of pay. Lastly, he was to face further proceedings in pursuance of the criminal case which was pending consequent upon case no. 42 of 1989 reaching a conclusion. In so far as the last aspect was concerned, the criminal case itself was quashed by the High Court on the petition of the petitioner i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5469 of 1992 : Md. Faroque Azam and another vs. The State of Bihar. The order passed by the High Court is reproduced : Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the two petitioners in a case under sections 409, 120, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(c)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sole ground taken on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the prosecution is delay in trial. It appears that allegation against the petitioners is defalcation of Rs. 1090/ -. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1975 and cognizance in the present case was taken in the year 1992. There is nothing to show that delay has been caused on account of any act of accused persons. Moreover, it appears that both the petitioners who are Government servants, were departmentally proceeded by Government and in that proceeding the petitioners were censured. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that allowing prosecution of the petitioners to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court as such, it is just and expedient to quash the prosecution. Accordingly, this application is allowed and prosecution of the petitioners is quashed."

(3.) IN these circumstances the writ petition had been filed. The order which the petitioner challenged in the writ petition was of 15 September, 1993. The writ petition had been filed on 30 September, 1996. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge consigning the petition to the record by not entertaining it on merits was of the view that there has been inordinate delay in presenting the petition, as such, the petitioner could not be entitled to seek any relief on his petition. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.