IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.17624 OF 2008 DHRUV NARAYAN PRASAD, SONOF SHRI RAM RATAN SAHU, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAG AND POST AND POLICE STATION KHIRHAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, GAROL-I, VAISHALI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ******** 8 28/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Kundwa Chainpur Police Station Case No. 32 of 2003 and the order by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikarhana, Motihari has transferred the case to the Vigilance Department for investigation. As far as the transfer of the case to the Vigilance Department is concerned, an application was filed on the basis of a notification dated 12th August, 2004 under the memo no. 8718 to investigate all those cases relating to the illegal appointment and payment by any of the Government Officer in the Education Department. I do not think that the order transferring the case requires any interference. With respect to the merits of the case, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the District Superintendent of Education had issued the letter transferring the teachers. As far as the petitioner is concerned, after his transfer he joined the new place of posting and informed the 2 higher authorities. As far as the Last Pay Certificate is concerned, it is said that it was issued by the Headmaster and the petitioner, who is the Block Education Extension Officer had no role to play in the issuance of the Last Pay Certificate and this fact is also apparent on perusal of the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sikarhana vide letter no. 1277. Learned Counsel further submits that the letter would prima facie show that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submits that the Vigilance Department is an independent body and it is required to make enquiry and investigation in the matter. Investigation would obviously mean that the Vigilance Department would enquire into the letters referred to on the basis of which the petitioner has been made accused and would also consider letter no. 1277 while holding the investigation. At this stage, the Court cannot proceed in the matter by quashing the First Information Report. This application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)