Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 11 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2005, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Dhanepur, district Gonda pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Gorakhpur and the chage sheet dated 24.9.2007 as well as the order dated 24.4.2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as Block Development Officer, Block Mujihana, district Gonda with an additional charge of Block Itiyathok, district Gonda. Upon the complaint of the then Minister of State for Irrigation, Government of U.P. dated 27.10.2004 with regard to some financial irregularity committed in implementation of 'Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna (S.G.R.Y.) in district Gonda during the period between 2001 to 2005, the matter was handed over to the Economic Offence Wing, U.P. Lucknow vide order of the competent authority dated 11.1.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of inspection conducted by a joint team on 20.1.2005, an FIR was lodged on 11.2.2005 by opposite party No. 2, Shri M.P. Gupta, Sub-Inspector, Economic Offence Wing against the applicant and other accused persons, which was registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2005, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Dhanepur, district Gonda. The investigation was carried out and the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant bearing No. 42-A on 24.9.2007, on which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 24.4.2014 and summoned the applicant for trial.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned charge sheet and cognizance order, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the same.

4. Heard Shri Rajiv Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations contained against the applicant in the impugned FIR are completely vague and ambiguous and the impugned charge sheet, which has been submitted by the Investigating Officer discloses no offence against the applicant. He further argued that a disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the applicant by serving him a charge sheet dated 7.3.2007, on the same very allegation as has been mentioned in the FIR, for which the applicant submitted a comprehensive reply before the Inquiry Officer and thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority and after considering the entire facts and materials on record, the State Government decided to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant vide order dated 13.8.2010. He also submitted that as the applicant has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings as far back as in the year, 2010, there appears to be no justification for his prosecution on the basis of the impugned charge sheet, hence, the impugned charge sheet as well as the cognizance order and the consequential proceedings against the applicant be quashed. Learned counsel in support of his argument has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (9) SCC 1 and another judgment in the case of Lokesh Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (11) SCC 130.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned charge sheet and submitted that the FIR, which has been lodged against the applicant was after due enquiry by the Economic Offence Wing and after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, which discloses a cognizable offence against him and the l