IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3958 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ANIL SINHA s/o R.P.Sinha, resident of Bailey Road, R.P.S. More, Arya Samaj Mandir Road, Danapaur, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna at present posted as Additional Director General of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Versus 1. DEEPAK KUMAR s/o late Ramesh Chandra Sharma, resident of village Bihta, P.O. Alipur via Khushropur, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District-Patna. 2. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Division II,Araria. ----------- 2 10.2.2010 This application is by the Vigilance Department of the State stating that the counsel for the Vigilance was not heard. Normally, this Court would have recalled the order and heard the matter afresh. The fact is that the learned counsel for the Vigilance even today is unable to controvert the facts, as noted in order dated 3.11.2009 passed in Cr.W.J.C.No. 764 of 2009. He does not dispute that on the same very allegation of alleged embezzlement, a departmental proceeding was initiated and the same very Executive Engineer, who was the informant in the case , has fully exonerated the said person in the departmental proceeding. He is unable to dispute that the department has received full account of the money, which had been alleged to be embezzled, as noted in the earlier order itself. Apparently, the only grievance of the Vigilance is that the said person has not appeared before the Vigilance and submitted account to the Vigilance . In my view, once these facts remain undisputed, no useful purpose would be served in merely re-hearing the matter or 2 directing the said person to re-submit account to the Vigilance. The Department was the informant and it is now satisfied that the money is accounted for, which had led to the exoneration of the said person. In view of the peculiar facts, as noted aforesaid, I am not inclined to recall my earlier order. The application is accordingly dismissed. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)