Jammu, September 25: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has categorically stated that exoneration in departmental proceedings would not always lead to quashing of criminal charges relating to same allegations and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration.
The High Court while hearing a writ petition No. OWP 171 of 2010 challenging FIR for offences under Sections 120-B, 167-A, 420-RPC read with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act registered with Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu against the Engineers of Public Health Engineering Department.
Pertinent to mention here that, during a Joint Surprise Check was conducted by the Vigilance Organization into the allegations of construction of substandard overhead tank at Dok Paloura, Jammu during the period 2006 to 2009 which is stated to have collapsed in the month of June 2009.
The FIR reads that the then Executive Engineer in league with the then Assistant Executive Engineer, the then Junior Engineer PHE Sub Division No.1 and contractor Janak Raj Gupta by abusing their official positions, had authorized payment in respect of the contract for execution of work that was not carried out in accordance with the contract thereby causing huge loss to the State exchequer.
The petitioners challenged the impugned FIR on the ground that a departmental enquiry was conducted into the same allegations in which the petitioners have been exonerated and no culpability on their part was found & it was further submitted that petitioners cannot be roped in as co-accused for no fault of theirs when the whole fault lies upon the shoulders of the contractor & other matters.
After hearing , Justice Sanjay Dhar said that "from the analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that when the allegations in the departmental proceedings as well as in criminal proceedings are identical and a person has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on merits, the trial of the person in the criminal case would be an abuse of process of court.
Court said that, however, it has to be kept in mind that the result of the departmental proceedings should have been accepted by the competent authority and the same should have acquired finality before determining whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed adding that before applying the principle that exoneration in a department proceedings would lead to quashing of criminal charges relating to the same allegations, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration.
The Judge further said that, if we have a look at the enquiry report that has been annexed by the respondents to their reply, it is revealed that it is not a case of clear cut exoneration of petitioners on merits adding that the committee constituted by the Government to conduct inquiry has observed that the field staff has failed to impose their authority as a result of which the contractor conducted himself in a manner which was not in conformity with the conditions laid down in the contract.
Moreover, the committee has concluded that the field staff cannot be absolved of their responsibilities as such they have not been given clean chit but their roles have come under scanner.
Court added that in the cases relating to corruption by the public servants, before registering an FIR, the concerned authority has to examine the record available in the relevant department and for the this purpose, record is needed to be collected from different offices.
So by very nature of the exercise, which is required to be undertaken in such cases, some amount of time is likely to be consumed, so do not find any reason to interfere with the investigation of the case at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order shall stand vacated, Court ordered.
|