The court emphasized the need for a preliminary enquiry before lodging an FIR against a public servant for serious misdemeanour or misconduct. It highlighted the importance of battling corruption and the need to deal with it firmly.

AMRITA SINHA, J.

1. A first information report dated 16th September, 2011 registered under section 109 IPC, and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') is impugned in the instant writ petition. The petitioner prays for quashing the same.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The petitioner joined the Indian Railway Traffic Service on 11th October, 1992. He held various posts in the railway service. While the petitioner was serving as the Deputy Chief Operations Manager, freight operations information system, Kolkata he tendered his resignation on 23rd July, 2007. Under Indian Railway Establishment Code (volume 1) Rule 302 a clearance from the vigilance was necessary prior to acceptance of resignation of a railway officer. Vide memo dated 2nd August, 2007 the Deputy Chief Personal Officer on behalf of the General Manager, South Eastern Railway intimated the Secretary, Railway Board that no vigilance and special police enquiry case was pending against the petitioner. The General Manager requested the Board for acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 23rd October, 2007. The Railway Board vide a communication dated 18/21 September, 2007 intimated the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata that the President of the Railway Board accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 23rd October, 2007 subject to payment of all outstanding dues, if any.

3. Even though the Railway Board mentioned that the petitioner's resignation would be effective from 23rd October, 2007 the General Manager, South Eastern Railway did not release the petitioner from service for undisclosed reasons. In such changed circumstances the petitioner made a representation before the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata praying for withdrawing his resignation on 22nd November, 2007.

4. Vide a memo dated 28th March, 2008 the Deputy Chief Personal Officer intimated the petitioner that the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal of resignation was refused and the service of the petitioner stood resigned with immediate effect. The master-servant relationship between the petitioner and the stood severed with effect from 29th March, 2008. Having tendered his resignation from service the petitioner was not entitled to pension.

5. After resignation from service the petitioner got associated with a company as Director. Under the able guidance of the petitioner the company made huge profits and the petitioner earned good commission from the said company. The petitioner invested the earnings from the company in the form of shares.

6. The first information report impugned herein was lodged on the basis of an oral information received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE, ACB, Kolkata on the suspected offence of criminal misconduct (possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income of a public servant) and abetment of the said offence by his wife and brother-in-law during the period October, 1992 to March, 2010.

7. The contents of the first information report is that information has been received from a reliable source to the effect that the petitioner while posted and functioning as the Deputy Chief Operating Manager (P & P), South Eastern Railway, Kolkata indulged in various corrupt practices and acquired huge disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.9,39,60,279/- by corrupt and illegal means. It was alleged that the petitioner obtained illegal gratification and extended undue favour in favour of some parties at the time of allotment of rakes under the Wagon Investment Scheme in the South Eastern Railway. The petitioner issued NOC in favour of one M/s. Madhu Transport Company which was a logistic company and was not eligible for participation in the Wagon Investment Scheme. The petitioner submitted his resignation in the wake of investigation conducted by the vigilance branch of the South Eastern Railway on receip