IMPORTANT POINT
Only the informant in a criminal case has the standing to request further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., and a non-informant lacks the legal basis to challenge the adequacy of the investigation or the charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. The petitioner is one Madhu Sharma, who claimed to be selected in respect of the recruitment process of Lecturers, conducted in pursuance of vacancy of 29 Lecturers, announced by Bhagalpur University in the year 1997.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she appeared in the selection process, passed in written examination and thereafter appeared in the interview but she was not appointed as a Lecturer against the vacancy declared by Bhagalpur University.

3. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the Selection Committee, i.e., University Service Commission, prepared a list of 1100 successful candidates against the said 29 vacancies and the said successful candidates were absorbed time to time in respect of the vacancies which occurred in colleges under other universities without any fresh notification for selection. In such process of appointment, widespread corruption took place, involving the Vice Chancellors of different Universities, Bureaucrats, Political Personalities and also the then Chancellor. It is also on record that on the recommendation of the Chancellor, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the ‘VIB’) registered Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2004 and submitted charge-sheet against some persons in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance.

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said investigation done by the VIB was perfunctory. The Investigating Agency failed to investigate involvement of some very important personalities who are deeply involved and also against their words/relations/dependence. Appointment of Lecturers made in the year 1996, following the Advertisement No. 2 of 1994, and those through Advertisement No. 2 of 1997 of the Bihar State University Service Commission were illegal and merit was not considered while giving appointments to the Lecturers.

5. It is also contended by the petitioner that the State University Service Commission did not issue any notice of appointment for subsequent vacancies in respect of universities beside Bhagalpur University but appointment was made from the panel prepared by the said Commission, consisting of 1100 candidates.

6. After filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner and another person, namely, Mithlesh Kumar, filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. The said application was, however, rejected vide order, dated 6th of July, 2022, by the learned Special Judge, holding, inter alia, that the petitioner had no locus standi to file such application for further investigation as she was not the informant in respect of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2004.

7. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order, dated 6th of July, 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance Court at Patna and further issue a direction upon the VIB to make further investigation in the light of the allegation made by the petitioner.

8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has made his elaborate submission in support of the petition. He also referred some decisions which I propose to discuss at a subsequent stage.

9. The learned Advocate for the State as well as the Vigilance Bureau, on the other hand, supports the impugned order dated 6th of July, 2022 and further submits that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2004 was initiated on the basis of a direction made by the then Governor, being the Chancellor of the Universities in the State of Bihar. On the basis of such direction, a suo motu FIR was lodged and investigation was taken up by VIB. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of the learned Special Judge and at the time of acceptance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner and another person filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C..

10. It is contended on behalf of the VIB that the petitioner, not being an informant, cannot maintain an application under Section 1