APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) There are surviving defects to be removed, though the instant petition was instituted long back in September 2012 itself. However, they are ignored.
(2.) Coming to the merits of the matter, we find from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner had sought action on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the respondent Nos. 4 to 7/Commandants posted at places like Ranchi, Saraikela and Bokaro in CRPF as the spouses of these officers have indulged in business of Real Estate and joined as Directors on the Board of Company M/s. Samridhi Creative Pvt. Ltd., where several persons were duped. The respondents 4 to 7 had contravened the service rules and not taken permission from their competent authority before their spouse could have joined on the Board of a Real Estate Company which allegedly had launched many housing projects in Ranchi and lured common people to invest substantial sum of money. Petitioner has also pointed out to the institution of cases by one or the other aggrieved persons like Complaint Case No. 397/2012 (Annexure-2), Complaint Case No. 493/2012 (Annexure-3) and Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 103/2012 (Annexure-4) under the provisions of Sections 419, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged acts of cheating and criminal misappropriation on the part of the accused person including the wives of these officers.
(3.) The respondent CRPF have filed a counter-affidavit in the matter. They do not dispute the factum of spouse of these officers, holding share in the Company in question in respect of which, its vigilance branch had also received a complaint dated 19.3.2012. The respondent CRPF inquired into the matter through I.G., Jharkhand and the contention relating to institution of criminal case, against the wives of these CRPF Commandants was confirmed. Seven victims of the Company had also reported to the D.I.G., CRPF, Ranchi on 28.4.2012 regarding the acts of cheating and forgery by the Firm in which spouse of these respondents 4 to 7 were on the Board of Directors. Respondents also state that after going through the report of E.O., I.G., Jharkhand, connivance of CRPF officers could not be ruled out, as it would be unreasonable to believe that they were unaware of the activities of their wives. Thus, there was a possibility that all these four CRPF officers have violated the provisions of Rule 15(1)(a) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Decision No. (6) of the said Rules. Reference is also made to the complaint lodged by one Anita Sinha and 15 others against the Company received in the Directorate on 21.5.2012. A fresh complaint was also forwarded to the I.G., Jharkhand for submitting a report along with statements/explanation of the officers concerned. A revised report has also been received on 20.9.2012. As, per the report of I.G., Jharkhand, all the four CRPF officers were aware of involvement of their wives with M/s. Samridhi Creative Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi. Further, few clients have deposed that they were induced by the functionary of the Company M/s. Samridhi Creative Pvt. Ltd. with the Commandant Dhiraj Kumar few times CMD of the Company had spoken with them on several occasions. Hence, CRPF officers have violated the provisions of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 19621. Prior permission from the competent authority for purchase of immovable property should have been obtained in terms of Rule 18(2) of 1964 Rules. Respondents contend that the matter is at the appropriate level of the organization and it would be premature to draw intervention of the Court before the competent authority/disciplinary authority takes a decision in respect of the charges.;