BINDYACHAL CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Joint Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi, as contained in Letter No. 5177 (Annexure-5), whereby and where under sanction for prosecution for the offences under Sections 7/13(l)(e) has been accorded by the Joint Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi in connection with Vigilance Case No. 13 of 1996 and also for quashing the order dated 5.6.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Ranchi in Special Case No. 21 of 1996, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the case, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts giving rise this application are that in the year 1988, while the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer, a building of power Sub-Station was constructed under the supervision of this petitioner and other engineers but within a very short span, condition of the building got deteriorated and when enquiry was made, it was found that sub-standard materials had been used whereby this petitioner and also other engineers in connivance with the contractor put the State exchequer to a great loss and. therefore. Dy. S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Pama lodged a case as Vigilance (Pat) Case No.13 of 1996 under Sections 420/461/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11/12/ 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 11/12 of the Bihar Corrupt Practices and Eradication Rules, 1993.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, first charge-sheet was submitted against one Jageshwar Jha but the cognizance could not be taken for want of order of sanction and so far this petitioner and other accused persons are concerned, investigation was kept pending. However, in course of time, the supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against this petitioner and others without enclosing sanction for prosecution. Subsequently, when the Bihar State Electricity Board. Patna communicated to the court that accused- Jageshwar Jha and Balgovind Prasad Sinha have retired, cognizance of the offence was taken against Jageshwar Jha. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer made request to the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna to accord sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecution of the petitioner in Special Case No.21 of 1996 (arising out of Vigilance Case No.13 of 1996), but the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'), after having scrutinized all the materials placed before it. did not think it proper to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was communicated to the Superintendent of Police Vigilance vide Letter No. 267 dated 20.3.1998 (Annex- ure-3). Notwithstanding, the fact that the Board had refused to grant sanction against the petitioner, D.I.G. Cabinet, Vigilance Department again made request to grant sanction but again the Board in its meeting dated 20.8,1998 decided not to grant sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, which decision was communicated to the Vigilance Department by the Board vide its letter dated 8.9.1998 (Annexure-4). However, those orders were never brought to the knowledge of the Special Judge. Subsequently, after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, when the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short J.S.E.B.) came into being, the services of the petitioner, being posted within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, fell under the control of J.S.E.B. Thereafter in the year 2002, the Investigating Officer made request to the J.S.E.B. to grant sanction against the petitioner and the J.S.E.B., without considering the fact that earlier at two occasions B.S.E.B. had refused to accord sanction against the petitioner, granted sanction for prosecution, which was communicated under tetter dated 9.9.2002 by the Joint Secretary, J.S.E.B. (Annexure-5). The Special Judge upon receiving the said letter took cognizance of the offence vide its order dated 10.10:2002 (Annexure-7) under Sections 420/461/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11/12/13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Sections 11/12 of the Bihar Corrupt Practices and Eradication Rules,1993.Thereupon, an application for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner before learned Special Judge taking plea that the order granting sanction for prosecution is bad on account of the fact that the Authority, who granted sanction, had not taken into consideration the fact that earlier at two occasions sanction for prosecution had been refused and as such, the order granting sanction can be said to have been passed by the Authority without application of mind and that too, there had been no fresh material for reconsideration of the matter relating to sanction. However, the court while rejecting the prayer for discharge did hold that there has been sufficient material to frame charge under Sections 420/461 / 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 11/12 read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.