ANJANI KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

Mr.P.K.Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of the letter written by the Sikcha Mitras to the District Magistrate, Nalanda, they alleged that petitioner demanded that a sum of Rs.15,000/- is not paid, the former would loose their job. From perusal of the record it would appear that vide Annexures-2 and 3, the D.S.E., Nalanda as well as the B.E.E.O., Hilsa, gave strict instructions to make payment of honorarium to 4 those Sikcha Mitras, only, who have been legally appointed as per procedure. On finding that the Sikcha Mitras were not appointed in accordance with the procedure the Pnachayat Secretary wrote to the Block Education Extension Officer to provide guidelines in respect of making payment as Sikcha Mitras. On the basis of the aforesaid letter the S.D.O., Hilsa constituted enquiry committee to ascertain whether Sikcha Mitras were appointed in accordance with rules framed by the State Government.

It appears that the aggrieved Sikcha Mitras made a representation to the District Magistrate against non-payment of honorarium. Further more, neither the petitioner nor Panchayat Secretary was member of the Committee, which had conducted an enquiry in respect of alleged appointments made in the earlier regime. In such situation the ellegation of Sikcha Mitras, whose appointment was found illegal seems manifested with bias. It appears that such allegation has been leveled against the petitioner to wreak vengeance as they reported the matter of their illegal appointments to higher authorities pursuant to instructions of senior officers contained in Annexures-2 and 3. The petitioner on the contrary would have been liable, if he had not taken appropriate step for stopping payment to Sikcha Mitras who were appointed not in accordance with rules framed for the purpose. Such Sikcha Mitras could have challenged such decision stopping payment before appropriate forum, instead of making bald allegation.

In back drop of aforesaid facts and circumstances this 5 the prosecution of Hilsa P.S. Case No.368/07, under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. would be an abuse of the process of the Court, as such it is accordingly quashed. The authorities have already instituted an F.I.R. against the earlier Mukhiya and Panchayat Sewak contained in Annexure-15, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the S.D.O., Hilsa. However, in course of investigation of aforesaid case, if material surfaces against the petitioner and others, the same can be enquired and could be investigated in aforesaid case as well. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)