Meena Kumari Rai vs State of Jharkhand

D.K. Sinha, J.—The petitioner Meena Kumari Rai apprehends her arrest in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 308 of 2002

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1899 of 2002 for the alleged offence u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner was posted at Hazaribagh as District Education Officer from 4.8.1999 to 5.1.2000 and she

Was transferred to Bhabhua, where she joined on 6.1.2001. It was alleged that during her posting at Hazaribagh the petitioner was taking the

assistance of Chandradeo Pathak a clerk in the establishment section and another Ram Sharma, an assistant in the District Education Office and

Sub-divisional Education Office respectively, in spite of communication of their transfer order. It was alleged that a number of records as described

in the written report dated 26.7.2002 were lying with the petitioner and the said two clerks unauthorizedly retained the documents and records in

spite of directions of the authorities by different letters and FAX putting obstruction in discharge of the official work of the en-cumbent.

Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place from 4.8.1999 to 5.1.2000 but the case was instituted

on 6.8.2002 without any explanation of such inordinate delay. As a matter of fact, the present case instituted against the petitioner was the counter

blast of the complaint petition No. 8991 of 2000 filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in which cognizance of the

offence was taken under Sections 353/420/406/409/504 of the Indian Penal Code much prior to the lodging of the instant case as against Smt.

Malti Chaya Kuzur the then so-called In-charge of District Education Office, Krishna Singh, Treasury Officer, Uma Shankar Singh, Raj Kumar

Ram and Maicheal Beck with certain allegation of putting lock in the chamber of the complainant and also of removing valuable records and

documents from the chamber. The learned Counsel further submitted that when the petitioner was transferred within six months from Hazaribagh

she preferred CWJC No. 93 of 2000 challenging her transfer order and in terms of the interim order dated 27.1.2000 Patna High Court stayed

the operation of the order of her transfer and writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a representation before the

Secretary, Government of Bihar and pursuant to such direction she though made representation but it was rejected vide order dated 1.7.2000

upholding the order of the transfer from Hazaribagh to Bhabhua. Another writ petition CWJC No. 6747 of 2000 was preferred by the petitioner

and the Patna High Court in terms of the interim order dated 31.7.2000 observed:

In the meantime, the petitioner will continue at the place where she was functioning prior to 1.7.2000.

The petitioner continued functioning as District Education Officer, Hazaribagh which could be evident from various letters of the Special

Secretary, Directorate of Education, issued to the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 with

the anticipatory bail application. She continued functioning as District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, till 23.11.2002.

The learned Counsel further submitted that as regards allegation of unauthorized retention of the files, the petitioner while discharging her function

as District Education Officer, Hazaribagh, had duly authorized the office Assistants as custodian of the files for the sake of convenience and work

distribution order was issued. The petitioner being a Class-I Officer of the State Education Service cannot be held as the custodian of the records

and as such she is being prosecuted with mala fide intention and bias against her by superior authority. She being the responsible officer shall abide

by any term and conditions which may be imposed her anticipatory bail.

The learned APP opposed.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that she did not make over the charge of certain records/file on demand and she took assistance of

two Assistants of her department in discharge of her official duties though both were transferred to the different destinations. The petitioner is a

class I lady officer and the allegation levelled against her is not as such to refuse, the privilege as sought for u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the circumstances, in the event of her arrest/surrender within 15 days of this order, the petitioner, Meena Kumari Rai is directed to be

released on executing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No. 308 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 1899 of 2002 subject

to the conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.