IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51533 of 2007 SHYAMA DEVI PASWAN, widow of Late Ram Sagar Paswan, resident of Mohalla Santoshi Colony Driver Tola, P.S. – Town Katihar, District – Katihar. --------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar. ------------ Opp. Parties. ------- 4 07.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the order dated 27.07.2007, as well as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class Katihar in connection with Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 423/2005, refusing the prayer of the petitioner seeking are discharged under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The undisputed facts in the case is that petitioner was an Assistant in the Subdivisional Revenue Office, Katihar, who was later on transferred to the General Branch, Katihar, but failed to hand over the records of land ceiling record no. 5/91-92 (Puniyanand Versus State) for which several directions were issued to her giving rise to institution of the case at the direction of the Controlling Authorities and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. The petitioner sought her discharge which was - 2 - refused giving rise to present petition. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was subjected to a departmental proceeding also prior to institution of the case and by the order of the Hon’ble Court, she has already been exonerated. So, no purpose will be served if criminal proceeding is permitted to continue. Learned counsel representing the State submitted that departmental proceeding was going on with respect to some other matters from which she has exonerated. Admittedly, till today she could not be able to hand over the records of one particular case out of several so, she cannot take advantage of her exoneration from the departmental proceeding. It would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner is a government employee who was directed by her superiors to hand over the charge to one Mr. Manir Alam within 12 hours through Memo No. 225 dated 15.04.2005, but she compliance the order two days later on the ground of inspection in the office and communicated her superiors and subsequently could be brought to the notice of her superior authorities that she failed to hand over the records of 41 files. Accordingly, a - 3 - direction was given to hand over all the files within three days, initially she could be able to hand over 32 files plus 3 files, but, the records of 6 files were not traceable. She sought further time from the authority concerned which was refused and an order was passed to lodge criminal case against her on 03.09.2005, if it is not handed over till 10.09.2005. However, she could be able to hand over charge of 5 files on 10.09.2005 but sought 15 days more time to search the remaining one file i.e. of file no. 5/91-92. While seeking time she has leveled an allegation against her superior authority that she belonged to weaker sections of the society, she is being harassed. For the first time she further asserted that during her absence lock of the Almirah was broken by her superiors and she is finding it difficult to trace out the concerned file. However, the case was instituted for none handing over records of one particular case i.e. file no. 5/91-92. Here, it is pertinent to mention that earlier one departmental proceeding was initiated/instituted against the petitioner framing as many as 9 charges for which inquiry report was submitted and ultimately, the controlling officer passed an order of major punishment. Of course, while considering the quantum of punishment, there is - 4 - wishper also that she has not handed over the records of 9 files, so it was also ordered to institute a criminal case against her vide order dated 26.08.2005 against which the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 12889/2005 before this Hon’ble Court, which was decided on 24.07.2007. In Para 6 of the order of this Court in above said writ application, it is mentioned that the charges were never proved against the petitioner considering this facts and imposition of punishment i.e. withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, reduction of rank and non-payment of salary for the suspension period is not sustainable. Impugned orders are fit to be quashed. One of the charges as it appears was non production of record of a particular case relating to land ceiling case no. 136/73-74, with respect to which there was some earlier direction of this Court which could not be complied with and the authorities were put under wrong box. On the basis of such findings she was ordered to be given all benefits as prayed. So far as case under challenge is concerned, it has no bearing with record of land ceiling case as mentioned in order of this Court referred to above but, it - 5 - relates to records of another case i.e. 5/91-92 which is admittedly yet not handed over by the applicant. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in a case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2010(1) PLJR 715. In the aforementioned case, charge in the departmental proceeding was same as to the charge in the criminal case and with respect to some sort of defalcation but, after further accounting no defalcation in the departmental proceeding was found giving rise to exoneration of the delinquent in the departmental proceeding and since the very basis of the criminal case fell on the ground, the criminal proceeding was quashed. But, in the instant case there was no departmental proceeding with respect to handing over the records of file no. 5/91-92 to the successor and admittedly, it is still missing. In my opinion, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is for the trial court to - 6 - decide the genuineness and effect of the defence taken by the petitioner regarding unlocking of Almirah in her absence by her superiors as one of the reasons of failure to locate the concerned file. I find no reason to quash the impugned order or proceeding in connection with Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 423/205, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Katihar. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)