The Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of processing against the opposite parties, I allow them further time to companyclude the vigilance inquiry and to pass final order thereof within eight months from today, on failure the said proceeding will stand quashed on the ground of number compliance of the Courts order.
The appearance of Mr. Arvind Prasad, Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are dispensed with.
The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at Patna.
By letter No.1 Misc.
Further prayer was made to direct the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar number to investigate or to proceed against him.
In the said letter a reference has been made to letter No.11018/2/2001 AISIII dated 10th July, 2001 in which it was clarified by the Central Government that the Government of Jharkhand would be the companypetent authority to companyplete pending vigilance inquiries against the officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already clarified by the Central Government OM NO.13013/8/2000 AISI dated 20th December, 2000.
The said case was disposed of with certain observations.
Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated 31st March, 2003 under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120 B I.P.C. and under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also registered against the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC for giving financial favours to M s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat, Patna.
They were also alleged of tampering with records.
Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 hereinafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act .
Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent was number companypleted within 8 months as directed by the High Court.
W.J.C. No.352 of 2002.
The Vigilance Commissioner states that the further inquiry will be companycluded within six months and report will be submitted to the Government within the aforesaid period.
The observation made by the High Court having number companyplied with, a companytempt petition bearing J.C.No.1498/1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna High Court.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the 1st respondent against the order dated 20th April, 2001 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 27th September, 2001.
The M.J.C. application stands disposed of.
Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dated 20th August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477 A /201/109/120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused persons including six public servants.
The 1st respondent had challenged the inquiry before the Patna High Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.7680 of 1997.
He also sought to quash the numberice dated 7th April, 2001 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation asking him to appear on 24th April, 2001 in the inquiry.
In view of the aforesaid circular dated 20th December, 2000 and by letter dated 10th July, 2001 read with Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act, vigilance inquiry which was initiated against the 1st respondent by the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar prior to reorganisation of the State i.e. 15th November, 2000, should have been transferred to the Vigilance Department of the State of Jharkhand, as the 1st respondent was allocated cadre of Jharkhand and was posted under the Government of Jharkhand.
He was an officer for the cadre of unified Bihar and was posted as the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation hereinafter referred to as BSFC between 12th May, 1994 and 19 June, 1998 .
On 1st June, 1996 companyplaints were received against the 1st respondent and some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants floated two NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing the BSFC beneficiaries loanees to deposit money in the NGOs in return of financial favours shown to them by waving off outstanding loan recoveries.
He sought an order to restrain the State of Bihar from proceeding with the inquiry against him and from taking any companyrcive action against him.
Having number companyplied with, a companytempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.1498 of 1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna High Court.
The 1st respondent challenged the vigilance inquiry in the earlier writ petition bearing Cr.
There was numberoccasion for the 1st respondent to challenge the said vigilance inquiry by filing another writ petition.
The Vigilance Department filed its companynter affidavit thereto.
However, it will be open to the appropriate authority to ask for more time, on genuine ground.
W.J.C. No.352 of 2002 before the Patna High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR.
After receiving the opinion of the Vigilance Commissioner reply of petitioner, the matter was forwarded to the Law Department, which recommended to remand the matter to the Vigilance Department for further inquiry on certain facts.
It appears that the Vigilance Department submitted report in favour of petitioner wherein the Chief Secretary ordered to obtain opinion from the Vigilance Commissioner petitioner and thereafter from Law Department.
What was challenged was the FIR lodged against the 1st respondent as Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477 A /201/109/120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 qua the 1st respondent.
In absence of any progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the 1st respondent filed writ petition bearing CWJC No.1573/2001 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
The 1st respondent was allotted transferred to Jharkhand Cadre.
The same was disposed of with certain observations.
W.J.C. No.7680/1997 in the Patna High Court.
The Government of Jharkhand shall also be the companypetent authority to take a decision regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other action based on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have been initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who number stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.
The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court challenging the inquiry.
15th November, 2000 was fixed to be the appointed day for such bifurcation.
Order dated 29th November, 1999 is quoted hereunder In pursuance of Courts order, Mr. Arvind Prasad, Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are present in the Court with relevant file.
The High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 20th April, 2001 refused to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the writ petition.
In view of such remand, the Vigilance Department is holding further inquiry in respect of allegations as were made against the petitioner.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The 1st respondent Ashok Kumar Singh belongs to Indian Administrative Service.
The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated 20th August, 2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.
It was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months, subject to grant of extension.
By the impugned judgment the High Court giving reference to the provisions of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 held that the impugned FIR instituted on 20th August, 2002 by State of Bihar, much after the appointed day is number maintainable and quashed the FIR.
It was also disposed of on 29th November, 1999 with a peremptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months, subject to grant of extension.
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and others against the judgment dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the High Court Judicature at Patna in Cr.
Having number companypleted the inquiry within the stipulated time, as per order of the High Court, the said proceedings stood quashed on the ground of number compliance of Courts order.That was disposed of on 25th November, 1997.
The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court and by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2007 the learned Single Judge quashed the FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dared 20th August, 2002 lodged against the 1st respondent and restrained the petitioner State of Bihar from proceeding with the case.
8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 issued by the Central Government clarification has been made regarding the pending proceedings against the AIS officers pursuant to bifurcation of States.
