Quashing of FIR – allegations of corruptions against IAS cadre officer and others – Bihar govt. order for vigilance enquiry – when challenged high court granted 8 months time for completing enquiry – Bifurcation of Bihar & Jarkhand – Accused was allotted to Jarkhand State – FIR reg. basing on vigilance report at Bihar Govt. – writ to quash the FIR due to lack of Jurisdiction – Apex court held that since the vigilance report/ enquiry is not transferred as per the circulars r/w as per sec.76 of Re organisation Act to Jarkhand State which holds jurisdiction to conduct enquiry – and since the enquiry report not completed with in 8 months as per the High court , the proceedings stands cancelled and as such the FIR registered basing on vigilance report of Bihar Govt at Bihar state against the IAS Cadre officer not maintainable – confirmed the High court judgment and dismissed the appeal =
On 1st June, 1996 complaints were received against the 1st
respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two
NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC
beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial
favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries.
They were
also alleged of tampering with records.
The Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry. and also contempt later on.=
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
8 months, subject to grant of extension.=
Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State
of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganisation Act”).
15th November,
2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation.
The 1st
respondent was allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.=
Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B I.P.C.
and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna. =
The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August,
2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the
Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to
direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or
to proceed against him. =
Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003
under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B) I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also
registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC
for giving financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,
Patna.=
Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent, it was
contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted to the IAS
Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November, 2000, i.e. the date on which
the Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against
him.
Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him will
stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15th November,
2000.
In that view of the matter, it was contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the lodging of the FIR against him by Vigilance
Investigation Bureau of the State of Bihar is completely without
jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.=
On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was submitted that since
the alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent had taken place
within the State of Bihar while the 1st respondent was still serving State
of Bihar it will have jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR.
It had been submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any difference in as
much as the offences as alleged have been committed by him while he was
serving in the State of Bihar.
On this ground it had been argued that there was no merit in the submission of the 1st respondent.=
12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act which came into force with effect from 15th November, 2000.
Referring
to provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central
Government the learned Single Judge held that in the present case it is
Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the Vigilance
Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the
matter or to lodge FIR.=
Apex court held that
So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the Central Government,
which were relied upon by the learned Judge of the High Court is concerned,
we are of the opinion that they are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.=
it is clear
that the circulars aforesaid related to the Departmental Inquiry and
Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to lodging of FIR
against an officer of either State at one or other place. Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has nothing to do
with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter of challenge to an FIR
(quashing of FIR), neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central Government, as
noticed by the High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to the provisions
of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued by the Central Government
for holding the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar.=
by the
Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated 20th December, 2000. The
Government of Jharkhand shall also be the competent authority to take a
decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other
action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have
been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.=
Therefore, it is rightly contended on behalf of the 1st
respondent that in view of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS
cadre of the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceases to have a jurisdiction to investigate against
the 1st respondent.
Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was not
completed within 8 months as directed by the High Court. Having not
completed the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High
Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-compliance
of Court’s order.
31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st respondent based on the
Vigilance Inquiry which stood quashed. Therefore, in view of finding
recorded above, we hold that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by
State of Bihar was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High
Court.
32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.