ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Writ application is directed against the F.i.R. as contained in Annexure- 25, filed against the petitioner lodged as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002 dated 20.8.2002 under various Section of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act). The petitioner is one of the accused in this case and he has prayed that the aforesaid F.I.R. be quashed and appropriate writ/order be issued in this regard not to investigate this case and to proceed against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He has further submitted that holding of the enquiry by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

(2.) From the fact of this case it appears that the petitioner was posted as Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation from 12.5.1994 to 19.6.1998 in his capicity as a senior I.A.S. Officer borne on Bihar Cadre of the I.A.S. Officers. It further appears that with effect from 15.11.2000 to composite State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand by virtue of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (in short the Act of 2000). On the creation of the State of Jharkhand the services of the petitioner was allotted/transferred to the State of Jharkhand. He was borne on the cadre of the I.A.S. Officers of Jharkhand State wherein he was posted to different posts. On the date of the filing of the writ application he was Secretary- cum-Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi. He has contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the I.A.S. Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15.11.2000 the date on which the Jharkhand State came into existence. The Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction of investigate the case against him. Under law the investigation of any Vigilance case against him will have to be vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15.11.2000. In this view of the matter he has contended that the lodging of the F.I.R. (Annexure-25) against him is completely without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The parties have been heard at length on this question of law raised on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that since the alleged commission of offences by the petitioner had taken place within the State of Bihar while the petitioner was still serving State of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge the F.I.R. It has been submitted that the subsequent transfer of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as muchas the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he has serving in the State of Bihar. On this ground it has been pointed out that there is no merit in this submission of the petitioner.