AJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication contained in letter No. 6112, dated 10.12.2003 of the Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms by which it has been conveyed to the Vigilance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna that the Government of Jharkhand has accorded sanction under Sec.197 Cr PC to prosecute the petitioner and further for quashing the communication contained in letter No. 6814, dated 15.12.2003 of the Government of Jharkhand on the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department informing the Director, Vigilance DOPI, Government of India, New Delhi that the State Government has accorded sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the petitioner and a request has been made to the Government of India to accord sanction.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner inter alia are that he is an IAS Officer of 1970 batch and was allotted Jharkhand Cadre. He was posted as the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand from 1st April, 2003 to 1st November, 2003. In 1980 -82 the petitioner was holding the post of Managing Director, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (in short BICICO). In the year 1983, a complaint was lodged against one Mr. C. Singh, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, BICICO. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR was lodged under Secs. 120 -B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 5(2), 5(1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a case was registered on 22.1.1985 in the Vigilance Police Station bearing case No. 05/85. In the said FIR many Officers of the BICICO including the petitioner were implicated. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to a firm named M/s Biscay Data Products (P) Ltd. and later on the said firm was closed. The petitioner along with other Officers in criminal conspiracy is alleged to have misused their official position for financial gain. It was further alleged that the petitioner without inviting any tender allotted the work to one Advertising Agency and put the BICICO to financial loss. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that in the aforementioned Vigilance case through investigation by the IB of the State Cabinet (Vigilance) Department was made and after four years of intensive investigations no evidence could be collected against the petitioner. In the progress report of the Investigating Officer dated 21.4.1986 it was clearly observed that no evidence of any criminal act, motive or malafide could be established against the petitioner. On 12.10.1987 the charge sheet was filed by the IB in which not a single word regarding any criminal liability against the petitioner was mentioned. The IB finally recommended departmental proceeding against the petitioner and has also forwarded draft charges and evidence for the same. It is contended by the petitioner that after examining the whole matter, all the charges against the petitioner was found baseless and as such it was decided to drop the criminal case. In 1990, the Government of Bihar informed the Government of India that the complaint which was registered against the Officers of BICICO in which the petitioner was made accused was dropped against him. However, in 1993 the Vigilance Department vide letter dated 17.11.1993 wrote to the Managing Director, BICICO asking for sanction of persecution regarding the FIR against some Officer of the BICICO. The Managing Director, BICICO refused to accord sanction against the Officers of BICICO on the ground that the case was dropped against the petitioner. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that he requested the Chief Minister to be relieved from the assignment of the Chief Secretary and he was subsequently transferred. In the meanwhile, the Chief Minister of Jharkhand illegally and with a malafide intention gave sanction for prosecution of the Officers including the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Chitaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the concerned respondent was not at all justified either in law or in facts to reopen the criminal case in the year 2003 -04 which was registered in year 1985 and dropped in the year 1988. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order grating sanction for prosecution of the petitioner suffers from the vice of non application of mind of the sanctioning authority.