D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) ALL the four petitioner have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order impugned dated 29.8.2003, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 9 of 2001 arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 51 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2 of 1998 as also setting aside the order impugned passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gumla on 25.1.2001 whereby the prayer of the petitioners was rejected.
(2.) IT was alleged in the written complaint of the informant presented before the Officer -in -Charge of Dumri P.S that several accused persons including the petitioners had not executed their work of construction done of various Check Dams properly which were authorized to them and, accordingly, they defalcated the Government exchequer. On the basis of written report Dumri P.S. Case No. 51 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as against the eight named accused persons including the four petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that departmental proceedings as well as criminal prosecution were initiated against the petitioners with the common witnesses. The petitioners were put under suspension contemplating departmental proceeding, but no charge could be proved in the departmental enquiry. Recommendations were made by the Enquiry Officer concerned to exonerate the petitioners as contained in Annexure 2 series. The Enquiry Officer envisaged that it were not the petitioners rather the Senior Officers who were responsible for the alleged defalcation. Meanwhile, police after Investigation submitted charge -sheet for the alleged offence and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court below. The petition of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Court below on 25.1.2001 and on being aggrieved when they preferred Cr. Rev. No. 9 of 2001, it was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Gumia by the order impugned. The allegations of the misconduct could not be established In the different departmental proceedings of the petitioners and, therefore, they were exonerated from the charges.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners have been exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceeding, continuation of criminal prosecution against them would be the abuse of the process of Court and as such, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. The allegations against the petitioners were discussed in course of departmental enquiry and only the senior officials were held responsible for the alleged misappropriation of public money, but unfortunately the cognizance of the offence has been taken also against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in : (1996)9SCC1 . The Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar propounded that "the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.";