The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify proceeding with charges of misappropriation, irrespective of past departmental findings of non-responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.21 of 2023 has been called in question in this Revision.

2. The background facts of the case are that, the Petitioner while was engaged as the Secretary at Deymal Service Cooperative Society, at Deymal, Kendrapara, allegedly to have misappropriated funds of the said Cooperative Society by not accounting for the amounts collected from different loanees and further by not reflecting the said amounts in the Office Register of the Society. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged by the Inspector of Vigilance against the Petitioner for commission of the offences under Sections 13 (2) & 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The case having been registered, investigation was undertaken and the Vigilance Wing submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the allegations appearing against the Petitioner and in absence of any material to proceed with the criminal charge, the Petitioner moved the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack praying for his discharge from the offences alleged. Learned Special Judge, Vigilance having heard the parties, dismissed the prayer of the Petitioner, which has been impugned herein.

4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner assailing the impugned order, submitted that the allegation against the Petitioner with regard to the misappropriation of fund has been dealt with in the Audit Report for the year 2002-2003. According to Mr. Rath, while the said report clearly disclosed the names of other persons, who are responsible for the irregularities, the name of the present Petitioner has been added to the charge sheet despite of the fact that the audit report has never recommended the name of the Petitioner to be responsible for such misappropriation. He further submitted that the Petitioner while was working as Junior Supervisor, was terminated from service, on the ground of misappropriation of fund as referred to in the charge sheet but accepting that in the audit report for the period from 01.04.2002 to 29.06.2002, the Petitioner found not responsible for the same, on the office order of the authority deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) against the security and got him reinstated in service. The Petitioner having deposited the said amount, continued in his job. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Letter No.1442/Estt. Sec./2019-20 dated 28.08.2019, wherein a De- novo Enquiry was conducted against the Enquiry Proceeding No.5593 dated 16.08.2004 initiated against the Petitioner, and vide Report dated 17.04.2020 the Petitioner was not found guilty of the charges leveled against him. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings by holding that the fund was not misappropriated but the figure found mismatched due to imbalance in the Cooperative Society.

5. Mr. Rath, referring to the aforesaid findings in the enquiry, submitted that the further proceeding against the Petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted against him in T.R. Case No.21 of 2023 would be abuse of the process of law and the learned Trial Court having not applied its judicial mind, arrived at an erroneous conclusion with regard to its finding that there are materials on record to strongly presume that the Petitioner has committed the offence under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the IPC . He made it clear that initiation of the proceeding