IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that a public servant requires sanction to prosecute for acts related to official duties, and emphasized the limited authority of the petitioner in executing decisions of the empowered Standing Committee and Chief Councilor.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, the informant.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.08.2021 and 28.10.2021 passed by the I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case as per F.I.R is that sole filing and P.C.C construction work was to be executed under 14th Finance Commission Head from the house of Chandan to the house of Esriti Sonkar under Parishad Plan No. 12/2019-20 in Ward No. 24 but without executing any work, the estimated cost of Rs. 7,23,824/- of the said plan has been siphoned off by the petitioner being Executive Officer, in connievance with the Chief Councilor and the Junior Engineer, Mahanth Pandey. It is further alleged that accused persons have siphoned off the amount by making forged signature of the informant on the measurement book and physical works completion certificate, who was appointed as Inspector-cum-Technical Officer and he was assigned to inspect the work on regular basis and monitor the progress as per estimate.

4. After registration of the F.I.R, the police started investigation and after thoroughly examining the evidence of the informant, examining the witnesses, inspecting the place, supervision report and report of Superintendent of Police, found the case true as against the petitioner and submitted charge-sheet.

5. The learned Court below, after submission of the charge-sheet against the other accused persons took cognizance vide order dated 21.08.2021 and after submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, reiterated the same and took cognizance against the petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2021 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the empowered Standing Committee, Nagar Parishad, Sasaram under the Chairmanship of Chief Councilor/Chairman Kanchan Devi had taken a decision to execute the said work vide its resolution dated 10.12.2019 and since the work was to be carried out at the level of department itself, as per the decision of the empowered Standing Committee, Mahanth Pandey, Junior Engineer was appointed as Executive Agency and thereafter Mahanth Pandey prepared the estimate of the said work. After preparation of the estimate of work, the informant Jitendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer, BUIDCO, Rohtas had granted technical approval to the estimate of work and as per decision of the empowered Standing Committee, the work order was issued in favour of Mahanth Pandey, Junior Engineer. The empowered Standing Committee had also appointed the informant as Inspector-cum-Technical Officer and he was assigned the duty to inspect the work on regular basis and monitor the progress as per estimate. The Mahanth Pandey, Junior Engineer, thereafter submitted measurement book showing that the work has been completed. The informant being Assistant Engineer and appointed as Inspector-cum-Technical Officer has also submitted the work completion report. The Chief Councilor has also made approval for payment to Mahanth Pandey, Junior Engineer. Hence, the petitioner being Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad had no option but to make payment to Mahanth Pandey.

7. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner being Executive Officer has not been authorized under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 to make physical verification of every scheme of the municipality and he has to act upon on the basis of materials available on record. In the present case, the petitioner, after verifying the measurement book, work completion report and the approval of Chief Councilor had made payment to the departmental contractor ie. Mahanth Pandey, Junior