G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):--

1. By the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the order on charge dated 7.11.2012 framed by the Special Judge in RC No. DIA-2007-A-0050 on 17.1.2013 under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that the petitioner has retired as Director (ADMIN), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 28.2.2013. All throughout his service career, the petitioner has performed his duties with utmost sincerity and devotion. Except for the present case, he has had an unblemished service record, and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

2. The allegations of the CBI which have been culled out by the petitioner in the petition read as under:

“4.a. The present case was registered on a complaint of Inspector D.K. Thakur, the then I.O. of case RC. No. 34(A)/2007-DLI being already investigated by the CBI qua the same subject matter (of irregular allotment of plots of J.J. Dwellers). It was alleged by the I.O. that during the period 2007, the petitioner was posted and was working in the Slum & JJ Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi wherein he entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Shri Ashok Malhotra and Shri Ashok Jain, in furtherance of which, fake/ forged documents such as ration cards and other identity cards were prepared and used in the name of fake and fictitious persons for allotment of Plots under the resettlement scheme of Slum & J.J. Department of MCD.

b. It was further alleged that the officials of the MCD by abusing their official powers and positions in conspiracy with said Shri Ashok Malhotra and Shri Ashok Jain, cheated the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and dishonestly allotted 12 Nos. of plots in the names of fake and fictitious persons at J-Block, Sector-16, Rohini Resettlement Scheme of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

5. Investigation was conducted and the chargesheet/challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Ld. Trial Court and on compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. the matter was fixed for arguments on charge.

6. That after hearing arguments on charge on behalf of all the accused persons including the present petitioner, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to pass a detailed (combined) order on charge vide order dated 07.11.2012 wherein charges were ordered to be framed inter alia against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC R/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC & Section 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

7. That the relevant portion from the above stated order on charge dated 07.11.2012 is reproduced herein:

“..... As such, prima facie all the accused are liable to be charged for offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/471 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, and 420 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC. Accused public servants, namely S.N.S. Sidhu, Philip Topo, Atul Vashisht .... (part A – page 51)..................

and Ashok substantive offences u/s 467/468 and 471 IPC are concerned, the same are not disclosed against accused Ashok Jain as also admitted by Ld. PP for CBI and as there is no evidence to show that accused Ashok Jain fabricated the documents. However, all the remaining accused are also liable to be charged u/s 467/468/471 r/w 120-B IPC.”

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is bad in law and the same has been passed without adhering to the concept of law and principles of natural justice. It is contended that none of the witnesses examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. have stated anything against the present petitioner and further the documents that are being relied upon by the prosecution do not point towards any involvement of the petitioner herein.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next contends that there is not a single allegation or evidence