RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–The short question which has arisen in the present writ application is whether the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Department of Vigilance, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 1) is justified in pursuing the investigation of Special Case No. 16/2017 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SUV) P.S. Case No. 01 of 2017 for the offence alleged under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dated 23rd March, 2017 even after expiry of more than five years notwithstanding the fact that on identical allegations/ charges the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of the inquiry reports submitted one after another by the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt. of Bihar and the Chief Commissioner of Inquiry, Government of Bihar.

Facts in brief

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Research, Training and Public Relation, Patna in the Department of Forest, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. His case is that he was at serial no. 1 in the list of candidates whose case were due for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission for promotion in the Indian Forest Service. At this stage, a complaint was filed against him to the I.G., Special Vigilance Unit (hereinafter ‘SVU’) by one of the employees of the department against whom certain disciplinary action was taken by the petitioner. At the instance of I.G., SVU an inquiry was held by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Conservator of Forest, Purnea. In course of inquiry, many notices were issued to the complainant but he neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor gave any evidence. A report was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests sent his report to the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, and it was ultimately decided to drop the allegations. The Chief Vigilance Officer forwarded the decision of the government to I.G., Special Vigilance Unit vide it’s letter no. 3699 dated 08.12.2015.

3. Later, on the basis of an unknown source information the SVU registered SVU P.S. Case No. 01/2017 dated 23.03.2017 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the “P.C. Act”) against the petitioner. A copy of the First Information Report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.”) has been brought on record as Annexure ‘2’. It is submitted that the F.I.R. contains similar allegations which were earlier made by the employee of the department which had been ultimately dropped. (Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application).

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that unlike other cases in which the SVU is conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR, in the present case, no preliminary inquiry was conducted and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2014(2) SCC 1 which specifically says that in the complaints relating to inter alia a case of corruption the investigating agency may conduct a preliminary inquiry, has not been followed. It is submitted that in haste the SVU registered the F.I.R. According to the petitioner all these exercises were done hurriedly only to deprive the petitioner from getting into the Indian Forest Service.

5. It is further submitted that from the so-called source information, it would appear that there was an oral information to the ‘SVU’ that the petitioner has got assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The said oral information given by the unknown sources were only vague information and it was desirable to verify the same at the preliminary stage. It is pointed out that a circular of the State Government issued by the Personnel Department vide it’s letter no. 945 dated 24th June, 2005 and circulated to a