IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.947 of 2007 ANJANI KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 3.3.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for declaring the F.I.R., if any registered pursuant to order of respondent no.3 as illegal and to quash the same. Before I deal with the prayer of the petitioner it would be necessary to notice the facts in brief. In 2000 Panchayat Election one Anirudh Prasad was elected as Mukhiya of Asarhi Gram Panchayat and one Chitranjan was appointed as Panchayat Sewak. In the year 2003 some Sikcha Mitras were appointed as Panchayat Sewak on the basis of written examination. The case of the petitioner is that the State Government through its resolution dated 20.6.02 has framed norms/rules for appointment of Sikcha Mitra. As per the norms Sikcha mitras are to be appointed on the basis of their qualification and marks scored in matriculation examination. However, former Mukhiya and Panchayat Sewak appointed Sikcha Mitras by deviating from the rules prescribed. The petitioner was elected Mukhiya of Asarhi Gram Panchayat replacing the aforesaid Anirudh Prasad in the year, 2005. One Kameshwar Prasad was appointed as Panchayat Secretary, earlier the nomenclature being Panchayat Sewak. In course of 2 inquiry it transpired that eight sikcha mitras were appointed in violation of the norms/ rules framed by the State Government. The petitioner submits that the D.S.E., Nalanda vide his letter dated 31.1.2007, as well as the Block Development Officer vide his letter dated 21.2.2007, contained in Annexures-2 and 3 instructed that payment be made only to those sikcha mitras who were selected in accordance with law. Panchayat Secretary vide his letter dated 18.4.2007 wrote to Block Education Extension Officer, Hilsa, stating therein that certain Sikcha Mitras were not appointed in accordance with rules and sought appropriate guidelines. On receipt of the aforesaid letter the Block Education Extension Officer, Hilsa sought documents of such appointments vide his letter no.122 dated 2.5.2007. Further more, the S.D.O., Hilsa vide his letter no.709 dated 24.4.2007, constituted a committee consisting of Sub-divisional Education Officer, Hilsa , the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hilsa and the Executive Magistrate, Hilsa, to enquire into the matter. While the Enquiry Committee was looking into the matter, eight Sikcha Mitras filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Nalanda stating that they are not being paid their honorarium on account of autocratic approach of the petitioner. They further alleged that Mukhiya threatened that unless they paid a sum of Rs.15000/- they would loose their job. On the aforesaid petition of the Sikcha Mitras the District Magistrate, Nalanda ordered for instituting an F.I.R. giving rise to Hilsa P.S.Case 3 No.368/07 dated 2.10.2007 under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the petitioner and the Panchayat Secretary have stopped payment of the honorarium of the Sikcha Mitras though they are discharging their work. In the meantime, the enquiry committee constituted by the S.D.O., Hilsa, submitted its report indicting the appointment of Sikcha Mitras during the regime of earlier Mukhiya. The enquiry committee found that the Sikcha Mitras in question were appointed against the Rules, framed by the State Government. On the basis of the aforesaid report the District Magistrate, Nalanda, also ordered for institution of an F.I.R. against Anirudh Prasad, the earlier Mukhia and Chitranjan Kumar, Panchayat Sewak, being Hilsa P.S.Case No.425/07 dated 7.4.2007 under sections 420,467 & 468 of I.P.C. The enquiry report would show that petitioner and Panchayat Secretary have rightly withheld the payment of concerned sikcha mitras with a view to save Government revenue. Mr.P.K.Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of the letter written by the Sikcha Mitras to the District Magistrate, Nalanda, they alleged that petitioner demanded that a sum of Rs.15,000/- is not paid, the former would loose their job. From perusal of the record it would appear that vide Annexures-2 and 3, the D.S.E., Nalanda as well as the B.E.E.O., Hilsa, gave strict instructions to make payment of honorarium to 4 those Sikcha Mitras, only, who have been legally appointed as per procedure. On finding that the Sikcha Mitras were not appointed in accordance with the procedure the Pnachayat Secretary wrote to the Block Education Extension Officer to provide guidelines in respect of making payment as Sikcha Mitras. On the basis of the aforesaid letter the S.D.O., Hilsa constituted enquiry committee to ascertain whether Sikcha Mitras were appointed in accordance with rules framed by the State Government. It appears that the aggrieved Sikcha Mitras made a representation to the District Magistrate against non-payment of honorarium. Further more, neither the petitioner nor Panchayat Secretary was member of the Committee, which had conducted an enquiry in respect of alleged appointments made in the earlier regime. In such situation the ellegation of Sikcha Mitras, whose appointment was found illegal seems manifested with bias. It appears that such allegation has been leveled against the petitioner to wreak vengeance as they reported the matter of their illegal appointments to higher authorities pursuant to instructions of senior officers contained in Annexures-2 and 3. The petitioner on the contrary would have been liable, if he had not taken appropriate step for stopping payment to Sikcha Mitras who were appointed not in accordance with rules framed for the purpose. Such Sikcha Mitras could have challenged such decision stopping payment before appropriate forum, instead of making bald allegation. In back drop of aforesaid facts and circumstances this 5 the prosecution of Hilsa P.S. Case No.368/07, under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. would be an abuse of the process of the Court, as such it is accordingly quashed. The authorities have already instituted an F.I.R. against the earlier Mukhiya and Panchayat Sewak contained in Annexure-15, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the S.D.O., Hilsa. However, in course of investigation of aforesaid case, if material surfaces against the petitioner and others, the same can be enquired and could be investigated in aforesaid case as well. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)