At the discharge stage, a court must assess prima facie evidence to determine whether charges should be framed, without evaluating the merit of the evidence itself.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2025 in S.C.No.9 of 2023 to discharge the petitioner from the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120 -B, 167 r/w 34 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the charge sheet.

2. The brief case of the prosecution:

The defacto complainant by name, C.Kipson, gave a complaint stating that the petitioner had issued transfer order dated 07.11.2012 to two teachers namely, S.Jeyakumar and S.Suganthi Brisilla, by overlooking that the defacto complainant was entitled for preference for transfer on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.(1D).No.259 dated 09.09.2011, G.O.Ms.No.(1D)158, dated 18.05.2012 School Education, E1 Department dated 28.04.2010. The defacto complainant had stated that the transfer order passed by the petitioner was illegal since it was issued for extraneous reasons and by abusing the official position of the petitioner.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, an investigation was conducted and on completion of investigation, a final report in the form of a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court for Exclusive of trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the revision petitioner.

4. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioner, during his tenure as public servant as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in his capacity as the Superintendent, while dealing with the transfer of teachers, entered into criminal conspiracy; In pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, the accused failed to issue transfer order to the defacto complainant namely, C.Kipson on the basis of seniority; The petitioner during the relevant period issued transfer orders to two ineligible teachers namely, S.Jeyakumar and S.Suganthi Brisilla by creating incorrect records and defying contemporaneous Government orders; The petitioner illegally granted transfer order to the two ineligible teachers, which is a valuable thing and thereby, the petitioner/accused No.3 committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 167 r/w 34 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) (ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The Special Court for exclusive trial of Cases of Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli, took up the charge sheet on file as S.C.No.9 of 2023. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The trial court dismissed the petition by order dated 13.08.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision.

6. The respondent filed a counter denying all the averments raised in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondent stated that there was un-rebuttable primary documentary evidence in the form of the original files relating to the transfer orders of the Government issued to ineligible teachers by the accused/petitioner. The respondent further stated that the original files reveal that the transfer orders are in clear violation of contemporaneous orders of the Government and as such illegal. The respondent further stated that all the ingredients of Sections 120 -B, 167, 34 IPC and the offence of criminal misconduct by public servant punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were present in the case.

7. The respondent, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Inspector of Police vs. N. Suresh Rajan & others, submitted that at the stage of fra