At the stage of considering a discharge petition, the court must determine if a prima facie case exists from the evidence presented without engaging in a detailed evaluation of merits.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2025 in S.C.No.10 of 2023 to discharge the petitioners 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 petitioners had issued transfer order 07.11.2012 to three teachers namely, M.Fathima, S.Balamurugan and M.Rejina Prabha, by overlooking that the defacto complainant was entitled for preference for transfer on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.(1D).No.129 dated 09.05.2013, 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 petitioners was illegal since it was issued for extraneous reasons and by abusing the official position of the petitioners.

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 petitioners.

4. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioners, during their tenure as public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in their capacity as the District Elementary Educational Officer and the Assistant respectively, 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 petitioners during the relevant period issued transfer orders to three ineligible teachers namely M.Fathima, S.Balamurugan and M.Rejina Prabha by creating incorrect records and defying contemporaneous Government orders; The petitioners illegally granted transfer orders to the three ineligible teachers, which is a valuable thing and thereby, the petitioners 1 and 2/accused 1 and 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. 10 of 2023. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioners 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 petitioners have filed the above Criminal Revision.

6. The respondent filed a counter denying all the averments raised in the petitioners' 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/petitioners. 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 servants 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 Inspe