DEVENDRA NATH SINHKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for is -suance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in Vigilance PS Case No. 28 of 1990 arising out of an occurrence dated 16.10.1988 in which sanction has not been granted to prosecute this petitioner till date.

(2.) PETITIONER has stated that he joined services in the Commercial Taxes Department in the State of Bihar on 14.6.1972 and thereafter was posted at different posts in different places. The FIR was lodged by the Officer -in -Charge, Vigilance Police Station, Bihar, Patna on 2.7.1990 bearing Vigilance PS Case No. 28 of 1990, regarding certain irregularities have been committed by the Purchase Committee of Operation Black Board Scheme of 16.10.1988, 22.10.1988 and 28.11.1988. Petitioner was posted as Director of Cultural Affairs, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna on 7.10.1987 and continued in the said post till 2.3.1989, though he was promoted to the post of Joint. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes under Notification No. 466, Patna dated 12.4.1988. He was transferre 'd thereafter on 1.3.1989 and joined as Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Head Quarters) at Patna on 1.3.1989. The Directorate of Primary Education, Government of Bihar under Notification No. B.Sell -7/98 Shi. 22, Patna dated 17.9.1988; named nine permanent members for the Purchase Committee under Operation Black Board Scheme as well as seven Special Invitees were notified. This petitioner claims that he was neither named as one of the members nor was special invitee. Subsequently in the attendance register of the Purchase Committee meeting dated 16.10.1988, someone signed as 'Devendra ' at serial No. 7. Due to confusion, the alleged signature was thought to be the signature of this petitioner which he denies. He has not participated in the meeting held on 16.10.1988. The name of this petitioner was included in the supplementary Charge Sheet No. 1 of 1993 dated 4.1.1993 by the Vigilance Department. Government of Bihar, Patna. Inspite of the strong protest raised by this petitioner, no action was taken rather under Letter No. SR. 028 -90 NIG. 2354 dated 28.5.1993 sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provision of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sought for from the State through the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Finance Commercial Tax Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 5, has filed counter -affidavit stating therein that this criminal writ application is not maintainable before this Hon ble Court in view of the fact that entire occurrence has taken place within the successor State of Bihar. In this case, investigation has already been completed and sanction to prosecute was sought for from the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar on 4.1.1993 itself, but due to delay in sanctioning prosecution, the matter could not be finalized and the proceeding also could not be concluded. After bifurcation of the State, the Government of 20/5/2014 Page 54 Amod Bala Mandal Versus State Of Jharkhand Bihar has already requested the Government of Jharkhand to issue prosecution order/sanction order to prosecute in the changed situation because of the fact that the petitioner has now become the officer of the State of Jharkhand and also in view of the fact that as per the judgment of Hon ble High Court in the case of 'Arbind Vijay Bilung and another, see 2001 (3) JCR 155 (Jhr) the Government of Jharkhand should issue the sanction order for prosecution, but the same was not done. This writ application is premature because until and unless prosecution is sanctioned, the petitioner has no right to seek any remedy against the expected apprehension of prosecution. This Hon ble High Court has already held in Ashok Kumar Singh ' case (LPA No. 281 of 2001), that when the place of occurrence is located within the State of Bihar, the writ or any other interlocutory application is not maintainable before the High Court of Jharkhand. It was also mentioned that for the scheme namely Operation Black Board Plan for the year 1987 -88, a sum of Rs. 9.12 crore was allotted to the Education Department by the H.R.D.. Government of India for purchasing certain items. Without any advertisement, disclosing the details, only in National Herald published the advertisement. So outsiders sent the tenders in a very few number. Most of the bidders were neither the manufacturers nor the authorized dealers of the required items. The Selection Committee selected for the purchase of materials and notified on 17.9.1988 as Notification No. OB.O -7/88 (Shi) 22. The Committee held its meeting on 16.10.1988, 22.10.1988, 22.11.1988 and 28.11.1988 respectfully. In the said meeting itself on 16.10.1988, petitioner Devendra Prasad Sinhku, Director Culture, H.R.D., Bihar, Patna took part and signed in the proceeding who was present in the meeting. During investigation, the Vigilance Department collected evidence regarding criminal conspiracy hatched by the members of the Committee in order to fulfill the object that the supply orders were given to the firms which were not properly selected. After investigation, a proposal granting prosecution to the petitioner has also been sent to the Secretary, Bihar, Patna under Memo No. 1 dated 4.1.1993 in which the sanction is still awaited. On these grounds, it was submitted that this criminal writ application may be dismissed.