DHIRENDRA NATH SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. By these applications the petitioners have prayed that in terms of the Central Government decision dated 4-10-1976 the criminal case pending against them be withdrawn. The decision of the Central Government, dated 4.10.1976 is contained in Anuexure 3 to Cr. W.J.C. No. 10 of 1980 (R) and Annexure 1 to Cr. W.J.C. No. 62 of 1980 (R).

(2.) The petitioners at the relevant time were working in the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (the H.E.C.). A report was submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the petitioners for submitting in connivance with each other false medical bills of Rs. 200 and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the petitioners by Annexure 3 to Cr. W.J.C. No. 10 of 1980 (R) which corresponds to Annexure 1 to Cr. W.J.C. No. 62 of 1980 (R), dated 6.7.1977 a decision of the Central Government was circulated to all Public Sector/Undertakings. The decision was conveyed by the letter of the Government of India dated 4.10.1976 by which it was decided that the criminal cases against persons who were drawing less than Rs. 1,000 per month should not be taken for investigation by the Special Police Establishment and such cases should be dealt with departmentally. In terms of this the petitioners have prayed that the criminal case should be withdrawn and the petitioners should be proceeded against departmentally.

(3.) In Cr. W.J.C. No. 10 of 1980 (R) counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-Union of India in which it was stated that Annexure 3 was issued when the emergency was declared in the country and it lost its force after the emergency was withdrawn. The reply of this was filed on behalf of the petitioners in which it was contended that Annexure 3 on the face of it does not show that the policy has elapsed after lifting of the emergency. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the supplementary counter affidavit it was stated that no decision as contained in Annexure 3 was taken by the Ministry of Industry in consultation of the Home Ministry or the Chief Vigilence Commissioner that the Special Police Establishment need not investigate the cases of the officers of Public Sector Undertakings who were drawing less than Rs. 1,000 per month. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 62 of 1980 (R) counter affidavit has been filed in which it was stated that no such decision was taken by the competent authority as mentioned in Annexure 1. The basis on which the non-existence of any decision by the competent authority was asserted is contained in Annexure-D to both the writ petitions.