The Court emphasized the need for factual and technical determination during trial and refused to quash the proceedings based on uncontroverted allegations.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - The petitioner by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with VGR Case No.8 of 2014 pending in the file of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar corresponding to Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 registered under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act') besides Sections 409 and 120-B IPC on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law.

2. Heard Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department.

3. As per the pleading, if briefly stated, the petitioner while posted as the Junior Engineer, ITDA, Champua, Keonjhar during the period between 11th July, 2011 and 7th October, 2014 was entrusted with different works under Champua Block and Joda Block besides the construction in question related to a Permanent Crush Bond (PCB). Further pleaded that after approval of annual action plain for the year 2012-13 by the PLC, the estimate for the said work was prepared for Rs.10 lac and was technically approved by AE, ITDA and administratively by the PA, ITDA and it was entrusted to Pani Panchayat. However, in that connection, the FIR was lodged by the DSP, Vigilance, Keonjhar with the allegation of misappropriation of Govt. fund of around Rs.2 lac through substandard work and inflated measurement of PCB with a report that a technical inspection was held on 21st April, 2014 during which excess payment of Rs.2,03,298/- was detected thereby causing loss to the Government and consequently, Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 of 2014 was registered.

4. The contention is that the investigating authority omitted to calculate the measurement of area which was piled with materials or in other words, there was defect in measurement due to lack of clearance of over burden matters which led to the erroneous estimation and that the defective measurement was never proved to be actuated with malafide and bias.

5. As per the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him as per the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 which resulted in the following findings that the measurement was not properly done by the technical team; execution of earth work in the over burden soil was also not considered; the amount excess paid to the executant was unintentional due to wrong measurement which is on account of oversight hence not to be treated as a mischief or gross misconduct; and it was a loss Rs.47,971/- only due to negligence without any malafide.

6. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate, while challenging the Vigilance proceeding on the aforesaid grounds would submit that the guidelines vide Circular Order No.10 of 2004 issued by the Director-cum-Additional DG of Police, Vigilance, Orissa as per which criminal cases/open enquiries shall not be registered or held in the category of cases including where complaint/information relating to negligence results in loss caused to the Government is less than Rs.50,000/- except where there are special reasons warranting such a Vigilance enquiry/investigation. It is further submitted by Mr. Nanda that the aforesaid guideline under Clause(vi) of the Circular at Annexure-4 was not scrupulously followed before initiating the Vigilance enquiry and therefore, the proceeding before the learned court below shall have to be terminated in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. While advancing argument on other points, Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions, such as, Shiv Kumar Vrs. Hukam Chand (1999)7 SCC 467 and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others Vrs. State of Maharastra and others (1994) 4 SCC 602 with regard to fairness in criminal prosecution; Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari Vrs. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2020) 9 SCC 636 and Dr.Minaketan Pani Vrs. State of Orissa MANU/OR/0302/2022 related to exoneration in departmental proceeding and its impact vis-a-vis criminal prose