Slnghal, J. - (1.) THIS petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been submitted to quash the FIR on the ground that the main accused in this case is K. R. C. Rao, the Executive Engineer who has already expired and, therefore, no action could be taken against the petitioner. It is further submitted that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner for which a charge- sheet was issued on 15. 1. 1992 and both the remedies of departmental enquiry and prosecution cannot simultaneously be taken. It is further submitted that the offence does not fall u/s. 13 in as much as the present accused must obtain for himself any benefit and no such allegation has been made.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that an FIR was filed on 15. 12. 1990 by the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department. According to the said FIR, the illegality which alleged is in respect of construction and payment and in making certain purchase. THE role of the petitioner has been prescribed that he along with another Junior Engineer R. K. Lohne has got the work completed which was sub-standard and has caused loss to the State Government and benefit to the contractor. THE petitioner was working on the post of Asstt. Engineer. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry has been initiated and, therefore, prosecution for the same offence is not justified is concerned, has no substance, because they two stand on different footings and even the degree of proof required is different in the two proceedings. The departmental proceeding is not a bar for the prosecution either u/ Art. 20 of the Constitution or by any other statutory provision. The employer has a right to take both the options and, therefore, the FIR which has been filed in this case cannot be quashed on this ground. The question which has been raised is that it was KRC Rao alone who was responsible for the entire action and the petitioner cannot be implicated. I would not like to observe anything at this stage as the evidence is yet to come and there are specific allegations against the petitioner even in FIR itself. This cannot be a ground for invoking the inherent power u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the FIR. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Dr. D. S. Tomar and S. Tomar vs. State (1), wherein the exercise of power to register the FIR was considered malafide as it was not alleged that there is any abuse of the power. This authority has no application to the facts of the present case. The last argument which has been raised is that Sec. 13 (1) (2) (d) contemplates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he by abusing the position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In the FIR, the pecuniary advantage has been caused to the contractor and the provisions of this section covers such a situation.
(3.) SINCE the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for invoking the inherent powers of this court under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C, this petition is dismissed. .;