IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.28814 of 2010 DR.RAVI PRAKASH BABLOO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 10.02.2011 The petitioner, in this application, is a Lecturer, posed in the Post Graduate Department of Philosophy under Jai Prakash University, Chapra. His prayer is for a direction to hold enquiry under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against Respondent No. 2, Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra and Respondent No. 3, Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, since they have committed offence under sections 177, 188 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to a proceeding before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6245 of 2010, by producing manufactured documents along with the Counter Affidavit, filed on their behalf and making false statement on oath, just to defeat the cause of the petitioner. C.W.J.C. No. 6245 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner for quashing the Office Order, contained in Memo No. 407 (R), dated 27.03.2010, issued under the signature of Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, whereby the petitioner, who is a Lecturer in Philosophy in the P.G. Department of Jai Prakash 2 University, Chapra, had been put under suspension. Further prayer of the petitioner was for quashing of Order, contained in Letter No. JPU-08/2010- 889/GS(I), dated 31.03.2010, issued by the Governor’s Secretariat, giving approval to the suspension order, issued by the Registrar. Petitioner had also filed C.W.J.C. No. 6406 of 2010 for quashing of Office Order, bearing Memo No. 183 (R), dated 25.02.2010, issued under the signature of Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, transferring him from P.G. Department, Jai Prakash University, Chapra to Narayan College, Goreyakothi, Siwan. Petitioner’s case is that in paragraph 5, sub-para (iv) and sub-para (vii) of the Counter Affidavit, a false plea was taken by the Opposite Parties that petitioner was relieved of his duty from the Department of Philosophy, Jai Prakash University, Chapra for giving joining at Narayan College, Goreyakothi on 08.03.2010 in terms of transfer order, contained in Memo No. 183 (R), dated 25.02.2010 and since the petitioner did not join and disobeyed the order of Vice Chancellor, he was put under suspension in contemplation of the 3 Departmental Proceeding, vide Order, bearing Memo No. 407 (R), dated 27.03.2010. In support of this statement a copy of letter, dated 08.03.2010 was annexed to the Counter Affidavit, as Annexure-A as relieving order of the petitioner. From bare perusal of Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit, it would transpire that the same is a manufactured document. This document refers to compliance of the Office Order of the University Service Commission, vide Memo No. 1.6.753 (R), dated 25.02.2010 with regard to R. P. Babloo, Instructor Department of Philosophy. There is interpolation at the top, so far date is concerned. The date was 18.03.2010, but it has been changed to 08.03.2010. By mistake, interpolation could be made only at the top, but so far signature at the bottom is concerned, it remained 18.03.2010. This shows that the statement made in the Counter Affidavit is false and the document annexed as Annexure-A has also been interpolated. In paragraph 5 (xi) of the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that Departmental Proceeding has already been initiated against the petitioner vide Office Order, bearing Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010. Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer 4 have been appointed and the charge-sheet has also been annexed with the Office Order, against the petitioner. The Office Order, dated 06.04.2010 has been annexed as Annexure-E and charge-sheet as Annexure-E/1. From perusal of Annexure-E and E/1, it would appear that both these documents are manufactured in order to develop a false case. A False statement was made on oath in the Counter Affidavit that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner along with Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010, but the charge-sheet, Annexure-E/1, is dated 27.04.2010. A document of 27.04.2010 (Annexure-E/1) could not have been enclosed with Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure-E). It is unthinkable that reference of subsequent charge-sheet could have been made in the earlier Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010. In this way, both Annexure-E as well as Annexure-E/1, annexed to the Counter Affidavit were manufacture document and the statement made in paragraph 5 (xi) is a false statement. Both the Writ Applications were heard analogous and disposed of by a common order, dated 14.05.2010. In the Order, it has been noticed 5 as follows: “Statement in the Counter Affidavit indicates that charges were framed on 06.04.2010, vide a letter singed and issued by Registrar on 27.04.2010. This in itself is unimaginable.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the statement made in Counter Affidavit in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (vi), (vii) and (xi), are false statement made on oath and the documents, annexed as Annexure-E, E/1 and Annexure-A, are manufactured documents. This is indicative of this fact that in a judicial proceeding, before the High Court, the Opposite Parties have made false statement on oath and manufactured documents in support of such false statement, which is an offence, under sections 177, 188 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 195 Cr.P.C. lays down the bar and provide that offences covered by those sections and committed under the qualifying circumstances, mentioned in section 195 a compliant case can be filed following the provisions under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., which lays down the method of removing the bar. It is desirable that after holding an enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C., a direction be issued for 6 institution of a complaint case against the Opposite Parties for offences mentioned above. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3, regarding Annexure- A to the Counter Affidavit and the statement made in para 5, sub-para (iv) and (vi) of the Counter Affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph 8 of the Counter Affidavit filed in this application that due to inadvertence, the copy of letter dated 08.03.2010, made available to the counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 was faint / blurred. In these circumstances, when the typed copy was prepared, due to inadvertence, it was not properly compared with the original, as a result the mistake in the typed copy of Annexure-A remained there and in stead of “08.03.2010”, “18.03.2010” was typed out. In the first line of letter, in stead of “University”, “University Grant Commission” was typed. In stead of Memo No. “183 (R)”, “1.6.753 (R)” was typed out. In stead of “Lecturer”, “Instructor” has been typed out. In the last line of the letter, instead of “08.03.10”, “18.03.10” was typed out below the signature of the Head of Department. The original reliving letter, dated 08.03.2010 has been annexed with this 7 Counter Affidavit, on perusal of which, it transpires that in fact there was no interpolation and the statement was also not false. As such, the first stand taken by the petitioner regarding Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit, filed in the Writ Application and the statement made in 5, sub-para (iv) and (vi) has no merit. So far, Annexure-E and E/1 to the Counter Affidavit, filed in the Writ Application, it has been stated in para 12 of the Counter Affidavit, filed in this application that the allegations made by the petitioner, are incorrect. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed vide Office Order, bearing Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010 and charges have also been framed in Prapatra (Ka) on the same day. The reality is that vide Office Order, bearing Memo No. 504 (R), dated 06.04.2010, Departmental Proceeding was initiated, charge-sheet was also prepared, but it was not signed on 06.04.2010. It was signed on 27.04.2010, because of late signing of the charge-sheet, petitioner was asked to submit his written statement to the charges by 15.05.2010, failing which ex-parte enquiry was to be conducted against the petitioner. It has been 8 submitted that neither the statement was false nor documents were manufactured. Whatever statement was made in the Counter Affidavit, that was absolutely correct. It is not a fact that Opposite Parties have either made any false statement in the Counter Affidavit filed in the Writ Application, neither they had manufactured any document. Simply due to inadvertence, the situation in which the charge-sheet though framed on 06.04.2010, could not be signed on the same date, but it was not explained properly. There was no intention on the part of the Opposite Parties either to make a false statement or to manufacture documents to substantiate any false statement made in the Counter Affidavit. Making false statement in a judicial proceeding before any Court and producing any document as evidence by manufacturing it is a very serious offence. The seriousness of the offence is greater and graver when it is done by Respondent Authorities, like Vice-Chancellor of the University and the Registrar of a University. Such action done by the persons, holding such high posts, could not have been ignored. However, considering the statement made 9 in the Counter Affidavit filed in this application that only mistake on the part of the Opposite Parties was that the circumstances in which charge-sheet was signed on 27.04.2010 instead of 06.04.2010, could not be explained by the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 in the Counter Affidavit, filed in this Writ Application. The charges were framed and charge-sheet prepared on 06.04.2010 itself, but it could be served to the petitioner later on and that is the reason that the time was allowed to the petitioner for filing the written statement after one month. I find substances in the statement made by the counsel appearing for Jai Prakash University, Chapra and the statement made in the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3. Since there was no intention on the part of the Opposite Parties to make any false statement on affidavit and manufacture documents in support of that false statement on oath, as such the inadvertence or error on their part can not be categorized as an offence. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no requirement of any enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C. and for filing a complaint case against the Opposite Parties. 10 Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner is dismissed, considering the facts and circumstances, stated above. This application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)