STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM LAKHANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Bihar and others is directed against the judgment dated July 25, 1995 of the Learned Single Judge by which he had allowed the writ application of the respondent and stayed the disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that on the same allegations criminal proceedings had been initiated against him.

(2.) The respondent is an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service and during the relevant period was posted on deputation as Deputy Collector, Revenue Administration, Patna Division of the Water Resources Department. The period was from April, 1984 to October, 1988. One Rama Shankar Prasad Sinha (for short, 'Sinha') was posted as the Cashier in the same department during this period. On October 5, 1989 a first information report was lodged against the respondent and Sinha for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469,120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged by the successor-in-office of the respondent. The substance of the allegations was that Tahshildars in the division were collecting money from the farmers on account of revenue and used to deposit the same in the Division with the respondent and Sinha, but the amounts they did not properly .account for and defalcated the same. It was stated that the respondent and Sinha had adopted three devices to defalcate the Government money in conspiracy with each other and by committing forgery and they used to keep substantial part of the revenue so collected with themselves. One device was that in the money receipt book maintained in triplicate different entries were made and while the Tahshildars who made the payments were given receipts containing the amounts received from them, but in the other part of the receipt book lesser amount was mentioned and that lesser amount was actually deposited in the treasury to the credit of the State Government. Second device adopted was that forged money receipt book had been got printed and from those, receipts were granted to the Tahshildars and the money received were not accounted for and not deposited in the treasury. The third device was that though the money was received in some cases no receipt at all was actually given to the Tahshildars and no record maintained and the amount so received was not deposited in the treasury. The police registered the case and started the investigation. A final form was submitted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 8,1992 whereby only Sinha, the cashier, was chargesheeted and not the respondent who on that basis was discharged by order dated February 20, 1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who had taken cognizance of some of the offences only against Sinha, the cashier.

(3.) Thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent on April 22,1992 and Home (Police) Department was also asked to reinvestigate the matter. At the same time, the State also filed a money suit on April 3,1993 against the respondent and Sinha for recovery of the amount allegedly misappropriated and embezzled by them which ran into lakhs of rupees. An application as also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on April 13, 1994 that some further material had been collected against the respondent which indicated commission of offences not only under the Indian Penal Code but also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A prayer was, therefore, made to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to transfer the case to the court of Special Judge appointed under that Act. The prayer was allowed by order dated April 21, 1994 and the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added by the Court and the case transferred to the Special Judge. The police is yet to file the charge-sheet after rein vestigation of the case. The matter against the respondent is thus still under investigation.