The judgment establishes that the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty.

By Court.- This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.5.2010 passed in Vigilance PS Case No.15 of 2009 (Special Case No. 19 of 2009) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(8), 467, 468, 471-A, 477 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 30.3.2009 the Ministry of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare passed a resolution to appoint doctors in various faculties of AYUSH which concerns with medical treatment through different indigenous methods such as Ayurveda, Yogo, Unani, Siddha and Homeopahty. For that purpose directorate known as AYUSH was constituted for making appointments of teaching and nonteaching staffs, Subsequently, the Secretary. Health Medical Education and Family welfare Department Government of Jharkhand constituted a State Level Selection Committee of which petitioner was appointed as Chairman. Thereupon an advertisement was issued for appointment of the doctors in the Department of Indigenous Medicines such as Homeopathy. Unani and Ayurvedic and also for appointments of teaching and non-teaching staffs in the Directorate of AYUSH.

3. Pursuant to that several applications were received whereupon criterias were laid down by the State for selection of the candidates on the basis of academic achievement and marks obtained in interview. On receiving applications. Selection Committee proceeded with the selection of the candidates. After process of selection was finalized. Joint Secretary. Ministry of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare vide it's memo Nos. 261 (3) and 263(3) dated 8.8.2008 published a list of successful candidates for appointment on the post of Homeopathic/Ayurvedic Medical Officer on contractual basis.

4. Before the result was published one Harshdeo. Gupta had lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Bureau on 21.7.2008 stating therein that he was also one of the applicants who had applied for appointment on the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer and had given interview on 12.5.2008. Thereupon this petitioner and one Dr. Jyotish Chandra Singh asked his to pay Rs.3.00.000/- if he wanted to be appointed but when he expressed his inability to meet demand of such huge amount they asked to make payment of Rs.2.50.000/-. On 21.7.2008 Dr. Jyotish Chandra Singh called on his Mobile and asked to make payment failing which it was told that he would not be selected.

5. Again a complaint was made by Dr. M.A. Rijwan wherein he also alleged that on the date of interview. i.e. 6.5.2008, one Kishori, agent of this petitioner told him that if he wants to be appointed, he needs to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. On negotiation he came down to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

6. On the basis of aforesaid two complaints a Complaint Case No. 352 of 2008 was registered in the Vigilance Bureau. While the matter was being enquired, into - one Harshdeo Gupta and Md. Hujefa Rahmam also made complaint about the irregularities committed by the members of the Selection Committee in the matter of appointment.

7. Again a complaint was made by one Dr. Nagendra Prasad Singh stating therein that he does have DVD wherein he has recorded the talk which was there in between Dr. Jyotish Chandra Singh and Dr. Rabindra Rai on the one hand and the candidates which would go to show that they had asked for bribe for getting them successful. He also claimed to have recorded the voice of Dr. Amreshwar Prasad on his Mobile which he played before him.

8. In course of enquiry, it was found that certain amount had been deposited by different persons in the account of Dr. Jyotish Chandra Singh. Having enquiry being made, it was found that Dr. Jyotish Chandra Singh got the amount by different persons deposited in his account and this petitioner had played the role of negotiator in the matter