Subhasis Talapatra, J.

1. All these criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR in Sidhai P.S. Case No. 01 of 2012 under Section 166/167/182/34 of IPC are tied up together for the challenge as projected in those petitions is identical and set up in a similar set of fact and circumstances, with some inconsequential variations. The respondent No. 2, hereinafter referred to as the complainant for convenient reference had been serving as the Jr. Engineer, Grade-I under the Rural Development department and he had been placed under suspension on 30.05.2005 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 28.05.2005 the memorandum of charges was furnished affording him the opportunity to file the written statement of defence. The imputations are for insubordination and indiscipline of the highest order etc. The complainant was found guilty and penalty was imposed by the order dated 07.04.2004 by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura. Even thereafter some reports had been received from the Block Development Officer (the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 03 of 2012) by the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012 who was holding the post of District Magistrate & Collector at the relevant point of time and the disciplinary authority so far the complainant is concerned. On such reports the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012 issued a memorandum dated 01.09.2010 asking the complainant-respondent to furnish an explanation as to why a disciplinary action should not be taken against him for committing financial irregularities, indiscipline and insubordination by a show-cause dated 28.10.2010 issued by the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012. The complainant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 10 of the CCA (CC&A) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect The memorandum dated 01.09.2010 and the order of suspension dated 28.10.2010 are available at Annexures 2 and 3 to the Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012. The petitioner in the Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012 had also received one communication from the leader of the opposition, Tripura Legislative Assembly on 19.08.2010 containing some other allegations against the complainant for financial irregularities and for misappropriation of government money. The leader of the opposition, Tripura Legislative Assembly also requested the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 01 of 2012 for causing inquiry. The said communication as received from the leader of the opposition was sent for comments to the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 02 of 2012 who was holding the post of the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, West Tripura Division No.-I having his office at Gurkhabasti, Agartala. He was also asked for a report The said communication dated 01.09.2010 and the letter dated 19.08.2010 asking for a report from the petitioner of the Crl. Pet No. 02 of 2012 are available at Annexures-4 and 5 respectively to the Crl.Pet. No. 01 of 2012.

2. In due course, the report was received from the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 02 of 2012 on 11.01.2012 which was prepared by the Inquiry Committee as set up by the petitioner in Crl. Pet. No. 02 of 2012 comprising of three officers. On the basis of the said report a show cause notice was issued to the complainant asking him why legal and disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for misappropriation of Rs.27,69,261/-, for negligence of duty and for submission of the false certificate of payment etc.. The copy of the said inquiry report dated 11.01.2011 and the memorandum dated 01.04.2011 by which the petitioner was asked to explain are available at Annexures 6 and 7 to the Crl.Pet. No. 01 of 2012. The complainant made a reply on 08.04.2012 denying all the allegations. He also denied all the allegations as furnished in the First Information Report dated 06.05.2011 which was lodged by the petitioner of the Crl. Pet. No. 03 of 2012 on 06.05.2011. It is to be