IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case is higher than that in departmental proceedings, and selective implication in criminal proceedings may be unjustified.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance, Sri Arvind Kumar.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.02.2017 arising out of Special Case No. 28 of 2006 in Vigilance Case No. 44 of 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the order taking cognizance is mechanical without due application of judicial mind, it is further submitted that the controversy can be appreciated better if the facts of the case are recorded in some brief.

4. It is next submitted that the present FIR came to be instituted based on a Complaint Case No. 16 of 2005, dated 24.03.2005 instituted by the complainant alleging that he was elected member of the Vigilance Committee of Gram Panchayat, Raj Ambara Tej Singh, further the then Mukhiya and the then Panchayat Secretary did not appoint him in different development scheme undertaken by the Panchayat, further that on 26.03.2003 he informed the B.D.O., Saraiya that huge quantity of government rice is being taken for black marketing, the B.D.O. entrusted the inquiry to a Veterinary Doctor, but thereafter nothing was done for nearly one year, it is next alleged that since no inquiry report was received for one and a half year, the B.D.O., Saraiya wrote two letters dated 15.07.2004 and 28.07.2004 to the S.H.O., Saraiya Police Station (petitioner) for taking proper action in this regard, but then nothing was done by the petitioner, thereafter, the complainant on 11.03.2005 made a complaint before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur but then also no inquiry was held and accordingly, an FIR was instituted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the allegation against the petitioner is that the FIR was not instituted based on the letter written by the B.D.O., Saraiya. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting whether non-institution of the FIR would lead to a criminal prosecution or the petitioner had to be dealt on the administrative side. It is further submitted that in the nature of allegation as alleged, prima facie, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that certain dates would be relevant for proper adjudication of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as the Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994 and had an unblemished service record till date of institution of the FIR and thereafter. It is next submitted that petitioner’s cadre was allocated to the State of Jharkhand on 01.09.2004, it is thus submitted that from 01.09.2004, the competent authority of the petitioner was the State of Jharkhand and definitely not the State of Bihar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the first letter written by the B.D.O., Saraiya to the petitioner was dated 15.07.2004 and thereafter again on 28.07.2004. It is next submitted that petitioner from 15.07.2004 till 20.07.2004 was on sanctioned leave thus when the first letter was written by the B.D.O., Saraiya on 15.07.2004, the petitioner was on sanctioned leave, which also is not disputed by the Vigilance, as such, the letter never came to the notice of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the letter dated 28.07.2004 escaped the attention of the petitioner since he was in process of getting allocated to the State of Jharkhand and on 01.09.2004 the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the