ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.10.2016 including the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Koderma P.S.Case No.169 of 2015, corresponding to G.R.No.1018 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

“The F.I.R was lodged alleging therein that, the prosecution case arises out of a written report contained in letter No.886 dated 21.09.2015 of Sri Prabhat Kumar Bardiyar, the Sub Divisional Officer, Koderma, addressed to the Officer – in-Charge, Koderma PS on the subject of irregularities committed in distribution of seeds received from the Agriculture Department of Koderma District.

That the prosecution case in brief as appearing from the written report is that 1000 quintals of seeds was provided to the District Agriculture Officer, Koderma cum Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Koderma. The said seeds were made available to Sri Mohan Sao, the President, Domchanch North PACSS Ltd., for distribution but the said PACCS did not have the required number of farmers or irrigated lands. It is further alleged that Sri Mohan Sao prepared a Seed Distribution Register and entered the name of such persons who even did not received the seeds. The said register containing the said entries were verified by the Pramukh, Block Agriculture Officer and Block Cooperative Extension Office of Domchanch. It has also been alleged that the District Agriculture Officer, Koderma made an attempt to withdraw the amount from the Treasury by production of bill. Lastly it has been averred that Sri Santosh Lakra, District Cum Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Koderma, Sri Mohan Sao, President, Domchanch North PACSS Ltd., Sri Adaresh Kumar Pankaj, Deputy Pramukh, Domchanch and Sri Babulal Prasad, Block Agriculture Officer, Domchanch have not performed their duties properly and as such necessary action be taken against the named accused persons. The said written report was received in Koderma P.S. on 21.09.2015 and the said police Station registered the same as Koderma P.S. Case No.169/2015.”

3. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Resident Block Cooperative Extension Officer in Domchanch, District of Koderma. In the FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner certified the list of persons who have been provided the benefit by the said Cooperative Bank. According to him, for the same set of charge, departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. In enquiry report dated 10.05.2016 the petitioner was not found guilty. In the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was exonerated by order dated 30.08.2017 contained at Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He submits that it is well settled that for the same set of charge, criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding have been initiated and in the departmental proceeding there was exoneration, the entire criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. He relied in the case of “Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another”, (2020) 9 SCC 636. Paragraph nos.12 to 15 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

“12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows : (Radheshyam Kejriwal case, SCC p. 598)

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are indepe