The court reaffirmed that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not absolve criminal liability; sufficient prima facie evidence is essential for proceeding with corruption charges.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010, the chargesheet dated 25.07.2017 and the proceedings qua the petitioner pending before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance in T.R. Case No. 08 of 2018. Chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner and six others for commission of offences punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short “PC Act”) Sections 420 , 468, 471, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short “the IPC”) and Section 3 -B of the Forest Conservation Act (in short “FC Act”). The application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C on 24.08.2021 for discharging him has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01.03.2008, the Petitioner took charge as Tahasildar at Vyasanagar (Jajpur Road), District-Jajpur. On 24.10.2008, one Sri Sitaram D, Director of M/s Mohan Projects Constructions Pvt Ltd of Hyderbad, had purchased two plots in Mouza Jamuposi and Dhanurjayapur under Vyasanagar Tahasil, under two registered sale deeds ( in short “RSDs”). As per the record of rights published in the year 1928, their kisam was “Salua Jungle”. In the sale deeds their kisam was mentioned as “Biali” which is agricultural. The Sub Registrar in charge registered the sale deeds without verifying the kisam of the land as required under the guidelines issued by the Inspector General of Registration ( in short “IGR”). Sri Sitaram applied for conversion of the lands on 28.01.2009 for industrial use. Upon receipt of the applications, the Petitioner instituted OLR Cases No. 66/2009 and 67/2009 on the same day and directed the Revenue Inspector (in short “RI”) Duburi to verify the field position and ROR and submit a detailed report. The provisions of Rule – 29 and 39 of the Orissa Mutataion Manual were not followed. The petitioner did not obtain clearance from the Kalinga Nagar Development Authority under Rule 8-A(1) (I) and without perusing the tenant ledgers or the Sabik RoRs. He allowed the conversion within a period of ten days (29.01.2009 and 06.02.2009). On the direction of the Collector, Jajpur, the Additional Collector enquired into matter on 04.09.2009 and submitted a report on 23.09.2009 regarding the illegalities fixing the blame on the Tahsildar (petitioner), the R.I. in charge Sub Registrar.

3. On 08.10.2009, the Revenue Supervisor, Danagadi tahasil preferred an appeal against the conversion orders dated 30.01.2009. On 04.12.2009, the Sub Collector Jajpur set aside the conversion orders dated 30.01.2009. The applicant-Sri Sitaram D filed appeal in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (in short “ADM”) Jajpur. On 19.12.2012, the appeals were rejected by the ADM and the orders of the Sub- Collector were upheld.

4. On receipt of the allegation of showing of undue official favour and passing illegal orders on 30.01.2009 for conversion of forest land for industrial purpose by the Tahasildar Vyasangar and his staff, an enquiry was taken up by the State Vigilance. Thereafter Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010 was registered on 20.08.2010 against the petitioner and three others or commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13(l)(d) of the of PC Act and Section 2 of the FC Act. After completion of investigation, and receipt of sanction, chargesheet dated 25.07.2017 was submitted against the petitioner and seven others for commission of offences punishable under section 13(2) read with (1)(d) of the PC Act, Section 420 , 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 -B of the FC Act.

5. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the