IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Udayan Majumder – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.R. 4597 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee , J.
1. The impugned criminal proceeding, in respect of which petitioner has sought for his discharge arises out of a complaint dated 26th May, 2014 made by the then secretary, department of agriculture, Government of West Bengal on the basis of a report dated 25.04.2014, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police CID, West Bengal. Petitioner submits that the fact leading to the instant criminal proceeding emanates from a recruitment process initiated by the Director, Agriculture Department, on 12th October, 2007 for recruitment of 331 Lower Division Clerk in the regional offices of the said Directorate. Accordingly an examination was held on 9th December, 2007as per schedule and the result of said examination in the form of merit list of candidates was also published in the official website of the government and also in the notice board of the District Agriculture office.
2. However, by a notification dated 18th January, 2008, the State Government cancelled the said examination on the ground that it was learnt that some candidates could not appear in the said examination for no fault of their own. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that some of the successful candidates whose name appeared in the merit list of candidates, (apart from two candidates whose contention were that they could not appear in the said examination for non-receipt of the admit card), instituted application before the Administrative Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2009 was pleased to set aside the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed by State Government in cancelling the said examination and thereby directed the government to give appointment of the candidates from the merit list following the relevant roaster.
4. Three separate Writ Petitions were instituted by two candidates who contended that they could not appear in the said examination for not receiving the admit card and thereby assailed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. A Division Bench of this High Court by an order dated 18th September, 2012 was pleased to dismiss all the three Writ Petitions and thereby affirmed the judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 18th September, 2012 the State Government assailed the said judgment before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, which stood dismissed by the Apex Court on 22nd February, 2013. Thereafter, the State Government instituted a review application before the Division Bench of this High Court, which also stood dismissed. The State Government instituted another Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this court, in disposing the Review Application, which stood dismissed as withdrawn.
6. In the meantime the successful applicants initiated a contempt proceeding against the then secretary, Department of Agriculture before the Division Bench, where contempt rule was issued against the defacto complaint by the Division Bench. Meanwhile the accused no.1 retired from the government service on superannuation on 31st January, 2014. Subsequent to the retirement of the accused no.1, the instant FIR was filed.
7. Mr. Nandi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prosecution has founded their case on assumption that accused no.1/petitioner herein had acted as the Chief Controller/Controller of the said examination. It has been stated that the successor in office of the accused no.1 could not recall if he had received all the files/CDs etc. relating to the aforesaid recruitment from accused no.1. Later on some of the files were seized but the major portion of the files are missing. In fact it was learnt by the IO (investigating officer) during investigation that Dr. Dhabaleswar Konar, Director of the Directorate of Agriculture had initiated the recruitment proces
Dilawar Balu Kurana Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135
Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satarvekar & others
Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
The court must assess whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused, focusing on prima facie evidence rather than merely accepting prosecution claims.
Insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct or pecuniary advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act leads to the discharge of accused in a recruitment-related irregularity case.
Probation not automatically confirmed if recruitment process tainted; discharge valid pending inquiry outcome.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits precludes subsequent criminal prosecution on identical allegations due to differing standards of proof.
A candidate's non-involvement in a criminal case, confirmed by removal from the FIR, allows for consideration in the current recruitment process despite prior allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the prosecution's evide....
Trial court must appropriately apply its judicial mind while deciding discharge application and not reject it summarily without examining evidence.
Results of meritorious candidates for police posts cannot be released or provisional appointment granted when criminal investigation and trial for exam malpractices are pending, despite lack of indiv....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.