ABHAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner seeks quashing of the Departmental Proceeding initiated vide Resolution No. 239 dated 11.1.2012 and charge -sheet issued thereunder containing six specific allegations of passing forged measurement bills in respect of NAREGA Projects bearing Nos. 104/07 -08, 105/07 -08, 108/07 -08, 109/07 -08, 110/07 -08 and 113/07 -08 in respect of execution of works at Rural Development Special Division, Galudih where he was posted as an Assistant Engineer at the relevant point of time. Annexure -1 is the charge -sheet. Petitioner was also implicated in a criminal case being Potka P.S. Case No. 60/2998 registered under Ss. 461, 468, 471, 420, 406, 408, 409, 34 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure -9 to the Supplementary Affidavit). The FIR was registered on the basis of the report of a Joint Inquiry Committee comprising Sub -Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur, District Engineer, Jamshedpur and Block Development Officer, Potka. The FIR alleges misappropriation of Government money in the execution of NAREGA Projects by committing forgery in which 11 accused were named including the present petitioner. Apart from the six charges in the Departmental Proceeding, charges in relation to execution of work in other NAREGA Scheme also forms part of the FIR. Charge -sheet (Annexure -3) has been submitted by the Investigating Agency on 19.3.2014 bearing No. 20/2014 in which while recommending prosecution in respect of other accused persons, it has stated that enough evidence was not available against the petitioner for submission of charge -sheet against him.

(2.) The Trial Court on 21.3.2014 has taken note of the supplementary charge -sheet No. 20/2014 and observed that the accused Abhay Kumar has not been charge -sheeted. Cognizance has been taken for the offences and processes have been issued against some accused persons (Annexure -4).

(3.) Inquiry proceeded against the petitioner and out of six charges, charge Nos. 2 and 4 were partly found to be proved by the Inquiry Officer i.e. Additional MANREGA Commissioner of the Rural Development Department. Petitioner was served with a second show -cause notice which however has not been brought on record. He has also responded vide Annexure -6 seeking exoneration on the grounds that in the criminal case, final form has been submitted exonerating the petitioner and that there could be no basis for holding him guilty even as per the Inquiry Report. Petitioner has approached this Court after issuance of the second show -cause notice and pleaded that the criminal case and the Departmental Proceeding being based on same charges and similar set of facts and evidence, he deserves protection from any precipitate action taken in the Departmental Proceeding which the respondents were inclined to take.