Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Shankar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 20 March, 2015
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No.221 of 2013
Ravi Shankar Pandey ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Co-operative Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Vigilance Bureau, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Additional Director General of Police,
Vigilance Bureau, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Lokayukt, Jharkhand through its Secretary
6. Nand Kumar Mahto ..... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : J.C. to S.C-II.
For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
-----
14/20.3.2015Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Vigilance as also learned counsel for the respondent No.5, Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand, and learned counsel for the private respondent.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, respondent No.5, in Complaint Case No.01/LoK (Sahkarita) 02 of 2012, wehreby upon enquiry, allegations of omissions and commissions have been found true against the petitioner, who was posted as District Co-operative Officer at Hazaribagh, and other officials, and accordingly, the direction has been passed for lodging the FIR as also for taking appropriate departmental proceedings against them.
3. The matter relates to payments made to the beneficiary farmers with respect to National Crop Insurance in the year 2009 and certain allegations were leveled against the concerned officials, which need not to be gone into detail. Suffice would be to say that upon enquiry made by the Vigilance Bureau, the allegations were found to be true, and thereafter opportunity was given by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, to the petitioner and the other officials, and after due enquiry has found the officials prima facie guilty for the allegations and accordingly, the directions have been passed for lodging the FIR and taking the appropriate departmental proceedings against them.
4. The defence of the petitioner is that the matter relates to the year 2009, when the petitioner was not posted in the district of Hazaribagh. Learned counsel has brought on record the notification issued by the State Government dated 29.6.2011, whereby the petitioner was posted as District Co-operative Officer at Hazaribagh, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner took the charge on 7.7.2011. The documents of posting and taking over the charge have been brought on record as Annexures-1 and 1/1 to this writ application. The only point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not posted at Hazaribagh -2- during the relevant period, the petitioner cannot be liable for any action taken by his predecessors and accordingly, the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta for lodging the FIR and taking appropriate departmental actions against the petitioner, are absolutely misconceived and illegal, and are fit to be quashed.
5. The counter affidavits have been filed in this case on behalf of the State as also of the Hon'ble Lokayukta. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, Lokayukta that though the matter relates to the year 2009 itself, but the petitioner was subsequently posted as District Co-operative Officer at Hazaribagh and he had verified the illegal actions of his predecessors and this was the specific charge against him. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the due enquiry has been made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta in the matter and accordingly, the impugned recommendations have been made after finding the petitioner also prima facie guilty. During the arguments, learned counsel also produced the relevant file showing that the documents though prepared in the year 2009, but verified by the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there can be no interference in the order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta.
6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there is allegation against the petitioner to have verified the illegal actions of his predecessors and on this allegation, upon due enquiry, the impugned recommendations have been made by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, the respondent No.5. The allegation against the petitioner appears to be substantiated by the concerned record as well.
7. In that view of the matter, there can be no interference with the impugned order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand, in Complaint Case No.01/LoK (Sahkarita) 02 of 2012. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar