Saran Singh Jaggi vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition for quashing the First Information Report No. 11, dated 3.2.1995 under Sections 409/120B, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh district Sangrur.

The petitioner Saran Singh Jaggi was posted as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Bhawanigarh, during the period from 4.5.1983 to 24.4.1984. He was served with a chargesheet under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, vide memo No. A1(G2)94/700 dated 28.11.1994. The chargesheet contained allegations, inter alia, that there was shortage of wheat which had been stored by the petitioner and the officials serving under him. A departmental enquiry was held and conducted by Additional District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur, who submitted his enquiry report to the effect that instead of shortage of wheat, as alleged above, there was excess not only during the period when the petitioner remained posted there, but afterwards also. The enquiry report was ultimately accepted by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, vide order dated 6.6.1994 and the petitioner was, accordingly, absolved of the charges levelled against him. The enquiry report has been annexed with this petition as Annexure ''P 1''.

It was after the departmental enquiry had been concluded in favour of the petitioner that a letter was addressed by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, that no case was made out against the petitioner and the case regarding the missing records was only against Mr. Kaushal Rao Singla, Auditor GradeI and Mr. Hardit Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, who were responsible for the misplacement of the record. A copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure ''P3'' to this petition. It appears that, in the meantime, the impugned First Information Report (copy Annexure ''P4'') had been registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, district Sangrur. The petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with the said First Information Report, applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

The grounds on which the quashing of the impugned First Information Report has been prayed for in this petition are :

(i) The facts forming the basis of First Information Report have been found to be incorrect and the stand taken by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings was found to be true and correct and, as such, the First Information Report as well as the proceedings flowing from it are mere abuse of process of law;

(ii) The allegations regarding misplacement of official record relating to Report PR35 of 8384 has become meaningless in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer that there was no shortage of wheat stock and, rather, the stock was in excess;

(iii) The other ground urged is that it is wellsettled principle of law that the decisions of Civil Courts are binding on criminal Courts and since departmental proceedings are akin to civil proceedings as they determine the rights and liabilities of the government servant, hence the findings arrived at in the enquiry report are not only relevant, but binding and in view of this, the First Information Report and proceedings flowing from it deserve to be quashed.

A notice of the petition for quashing of the First Information Report was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab. On behalf of the respondent, reply by way of an affidavit sworn by Mr. Devinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sangrur, was filed contending inter alia that the petitioner was chargesheeted after the shortage of wheat stored by him and other officials and he was dealt with departmentally, but exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The First Information Report was registered on the communication received from the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur. The First Information Report relates to misappropriation of records of the office. It was denied that there was any abuse of the process of criminal law if the proceedings are continued and the same are not liable to be quashed. The case, it was contended, was still under investigation. It was contended that, though the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges regarding the shortage of wheat, but the allegations made in the First Information Report relate to misappropriation of records.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and perused the records of the case.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was chargesheeted on the allegations of shortage of wheat in the stock stored by him and the other officials serving under him. It is also not disputed that in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges and the enquiry report was ultimately accepted by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, vide order dated 6.6.1994 (copy Annexure ''P2'') and it is relevant to note that the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, while accepting the enquiry report, had observed as under :

"xxx xxxx during his tenure the amount of wheat despatched was found in excess. Even after his having been relieved of his duties till 17.5.1984 again an excess was found in the wheat despatched.

Therefore, no case is made out against Mr. Saran Singh Jaggi, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer and the chargesheet issued to him stands dropped."

This fact regarding the departmental enquiry coming to an end in favour of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent. The respondentState has taken the stand that the First Information Report has been registered regarding the offence of misappropriation of records and reference has been made to the communication received from the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur (copy Annexure ''P3''). Annexure ''P3'' is dated 1.2.1994 and the communication is on the subject "Registration of police case for the loss of record relating to P.R. Centre Bhawanigarh."

A perusal of the impugned First Information Report (Annexure ''P4'') will go to show that a complaint was received through Dak from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, vide memo No. 1406/C, 7188/C dated 30.1.1994 which was from District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur to the Station House Officer, Bhawanigarh vide memo No. 1293/20459 dated 17.9.1993, in which a request had been made to lodge a complaint and make investigation regarding loss of official record pertaining to the year 198384 along with PR35 Report which could not be traced out in spite of best efforts. The Director, Food and Supplies and Special Secretary, Punjab, vide letter No. E & S2(1)(316)93/1731 dated 13.9.1993 requested that a case may be registered against the officials named therein so that the relevant record along with PR35 Report may be traced out. The officials'' names were :

Mr. Saran Singh Jaggi, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Barnala;

Mr. Hardit Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer C/o D.F.S.E., Ferozepur;

Mr. Kaushal Rao Singla, Inspector, Food and Supplies, Sunam;

Mr. Harbans Singh, Sub Inspector C/o D.F.S.C., Patiala;

Mr Sushil Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food and Supplies, Sangrur; and

Mr. Charanjit Singh, Auditor, office of District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur.

The impugned First Information Report shows that the reference had been examined and discussed with the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur, revealing that the petitioner and others had criminally misappropriated the official record pertaining to the shortage of wheat of the Food and Supplies Department, Sangrur, Bhawanigarh Centre in order to avoid action and a prima facie commission of offence punishable under Sections 409/120B, Indian Penal Code, was disclosed. This First Information Report was registered on 3.2.1995. Annexure ''P3'' dated 1.2.1994 is the letter sent by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, regarding the registration of the police case for the loss of record relating to P.R. Centre, Bhawanigarh, contending inter alia that in accordance with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Kaushal Rao Singla, Auditor GradeI and Mr. Hardit Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer (now Auditor GradeI) were found guilty and a request was made to register a case against these officials. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer, the Additional District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur, found that :

"From all the above, it is clear that these officials have deliberately tampered with the old PR35 reports and have created the new ones in their place. And I have reached the conclusion that both Mr. Hardit Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer and Mr. Kaushal Rao, Inspector, are responsible for this episode."

Referring to this report, it has been contended that once the petitioner was not found departmentally liable for the tampering of the old PR35 reports and loss of records, then on the same allegations the First Information Report could not be registered against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Barjinder Pal v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 690. The said case related to the officials of Markfed, Ferozepur, against whom First Information Report under Section 409, Indian Penal Code was registered. The quashing of the First Information Report under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, was prayed for. In Barjinder Pal''s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on the authorities reported as Harbhagwan Das v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156 and Bant Singh v. The Dulley Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 435 held that, to proceed against the petitioner in a criminal Court on the same set of facts which were the subjectmatter of the award against him before the Arbitrator, was the misuse of the process of Court and, consequently, the First Information Report was quashed.

In view of the facts discussed above, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry which became final and the stand taken by the petitioner was upheld in the said enquiry. On the same set of facts, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and proceeded with in the criminal case. Once the department accepted the case of the petitioner that he was not involved in misappropriation of the records and the communication of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sangrur (Annexure ''P3'') found that the other officials, named therein, were responsible for the loss of the records in question, the continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the impugned First Information Report against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned First Information Report is quashed qua the petitioner Saran Singh Jaggi.