RAVI NATH VERMA,J. - (1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short „the Code?), the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case no.- 2 (A) of 2000 arising out of Patna Vigilance P.S. Case no. 11 of 2000, whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code for his discharge, has been rejected.
(2.) The factual score as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the Superintendent of Police under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 revelas that irregularities have been committed in appointment of Class-III and Class-IV posts in Public Health and Engineering Department between the year 1975 to 1976 and the F.I.R. was lodged after a direction given by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The allegation so far the petitioner is concerned, is mentioned in paragraph-4 of the F.I.R. that he had forwarded the applications of Mangru Oraon, Dinanath Singh, Gupteshwar Prasad recommended by Surendra Yadav, then Section Officer and also the applications of Jaggu Mahali, Laurance Tuslugun, Shankar Mahli recommended by Alok Kumar Ghosh-the then Junior Engineer for their appointment in IVth Grade in the said Department and in pursuance to the above recommendations, Mangru Oraon and Jaggu Mahali were appointed as Mali, Dinanath and Gupteshwar Prasad were appointed as Telephone Attendant, Laurance Tuslugun as Chowkidar-cum-Keyman and Shankar Mahali as Second Grade Plumber by Sri Raghav Choubey the then Executive Engineer of the said department. At that time, this petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Swarnrekha Head Works Division, Ranchi. The said appointments were made in violation of and without following the procedures prescribed for appointment of Class-IV employees.
(3.) After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was fixed for framing of charge but the petitioner filed the petition for his discharge. The learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi after hearing the parties and examining the evidences and materials on record, rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner by the order impugned holding sufficiency of materials including the statement of witnesses available on record to frame the charge against this petitioner. Hence, this revision.;