SANJOY SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer, which had initially been made in this application, is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the authority from prosecuting the petitioner criminally till the inquiry report is under consideration with the Public Accounts Committee of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. Subsequently, F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner and other was also sought to be quashed. It was submitted by Mr. Rajeev Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) raised certain objections with regard to the functioning of the Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development (JREDA) in his report dated 31.3.2009. The matter came up before the Public Accounts Committee, who took up the matter relating to the objections raised by CAG and also in the audit report of the Finance Department. While the matter was under consideration before the Public Accounts Committee, the Government communicated to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that the objection raised by the CAG as well as by the Finance Department requires to be inquired into by the Vigilance, report of which would be submitted before the Public Accounts Committee. Accordingly, the Vigilance Commissioner wrote to the D.G.P., Vigilance to conduct an inquiry into the illegality, financial irregularity committed by JREDA and to submit report to the Government. In that eventuality, Public Accounts Committee stopped its hands in proceeding with the matter when it was assured by the Vigilance Department that the inquiry relating to the objections raised by the CAG would be completed within three months. For years together, the Vigilance did not do anything in the matter. Meanwhile, a PIL was filed, wherein this Court passed an order on 10.2.2012 by virtue of which the Vigilance accelerated its speed in the matter relating to the inquiry as aforesaid. Thereupon, the petitioner did write to the S.P., Cabinet Vigilance Department to give him an opportunity to explain certain things related to his functioning as Director, JREDA, from November, 2005 to 10th April, 2006 and from December, 2008 to September, 2009. But, to utter surprise of the petitioner, the Vigilance did submit inquiry report, which was made part of the counter affidavit, filed in the said PIL, whereby the petitioner came to know that Vigilance is contemplating to lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner. Subsequently, an F.I.R was lodged while this application was pending for consideration and, therefore, by way of interlocutory application, F.I.R. has also been sought to be quashed as the Vigilance had no business to lodge the case while the matter was under consideration before the PAC particularly when the Government had promised that the report of the Vigilance would be laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

(2.) Thus, by referring to the aforesaid provision submission was made that so long Public Accounts Committee is in seisin with the matter, financial irregularity raised either by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by any other source, the others including the Court will have absolutely no say in the matter but in the instant case while the Public Accounts Committee was waiting for the report to be submitted by the Vigilance, the Vigilance by ignoring the Constitutional provision and in derogation of the authority of the PAC, has lodged the first information report, which warrants to be quashed only on this ground. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has referred to a decision rendered in a case of "Arbind Kumar Sharma vs. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Others, 2011 4 PLJR 887].

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed, which is quite in detail wherein it has been stated that the Government of Jharkhand through Cabinet (Vigilance) Department informed the Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand that a team deputed by the Accountant General, Jharkhand and also a team of the Auditors, deputed by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, has found evidences of embezzlement, abuse of authority and financial irregularities in Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development (JREDA) and, as such, it should conduct a preliminary inquiry over the matter. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Vigilance Bureau took up the matter for preliminary inquiry, which was inquired into by an Officer of the rank of Superintendent Police. In course of inquiry, several materials came to light showing commission of many criminal offences and, therefore, the Vigilance could not confine itself only to the inquiry relating to the objections raised by the teams of the Accountant General as well as the Auditors of the Finance Department, rather went beyond it. In course of inquiry, it was found that the Government of Jharkhand had decided to award the work relating to the solar electrification of 82 villages under a Remote Village Electrification Programme (RVEP) to Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. (REIL), but the petitioner, who was working as Director, JREDA, did not award the work to REIL, a public sector undertaking but to a private company called as PPS Enviro Power Limited without taking permission from the Government. The extent of value of the work was as such that the Director, JREDA, could not have taken any decision without approval of the Government. That apart, other kinds of irregularity amounting to defalcation, forgery, misappropriation was found and, thereby, JREDA was put to loss to the tune of Rs. 48,28,131/-. It has also been stated that while the matter was under inquiry, a PIL was filed, whereby this Court passed an order giving directions to the Vigilance Bureau for completing the inquiry within three months. The Hon'ble High Court did further pass order that if anything or any criminality is found, the State Government and the concerned department will be free to take appropriate action on the basis of finding with respect to any of the issue and the State Government or any of the Departments shall not take an excuse for not taking action due to the pendency of the Public Interest Litigation. Under this situation, when in course of inquiry criminality was found on the part of the accused persons, the Vigilance did submit report and also lodged an FIR and in such situation, first information report never warrants to be quashed.