Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Kundan Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Special Judge, whereby charge was ordered to be framed against him under Sections 13(1) ( c ) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had misappropriated 200 bags of cement but in the departmental proceedings, it was found that the petitioner had not misappropriated the said bags. The cement bags had been consumed on concerned water supply scheme, Kohrian and recovery had also been made from the concerned contractor. Hence, the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar 1996 (4) SCT 21, wherein, it was held as under:- “At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 3 appellant in criminal proceedings.” Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the departmental proceedings could not continue during the pendency of the vigilance proceedings. Hence, no reliance could be placed on the departmental proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, in the present case, allegation against the petitioner was that he had misappropriated 200 bags of cement from cement store, Sangrur on 20.4.2002. However, during departmental proceedings, it transpired that the allegations against the petitioner qua misappropriation of 200 bags of cement were not proved. The said finding during departmental proceedings is evident from Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8. Vide Annexure P-8, Chief Engineer (North), Punjab, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Patiala had written to Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Chandigarh as under:- “Regarding the subject, it is submitted that by sending the copy of Vigilance Department's letter No.51/13/03- 383/12722 dated 18.7.2005 along with its enclosures, received vide Government letter under reference, Superintending Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Halqa Sangrur, was asked that according the above said enquiry report, disciplinary action be taken immediately against Shri Kundan Lal, J.E.(Retd.) under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 4 after making recovery of the amount due of the cement from the retiree report be sent. Superintending Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Halqa, Sangrur vide his letter No.11460 dated 31.8.2006 by sending his remarks on the reply submitted by the retiree has informed that according to the report of the Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation (PWS) Division Sangrur, record/original vouchers have been checked in the Divisional Office, according to which on the Water Supply Scheme Kohrian, vide different indents, consumption of 220 bags of cement has been shown and recovery of the cost of these 220 bags of cement has been made from Shri Sushil Kumar, the contractor of the concerned work. From the aforesaid report sent by Superintending Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Halqa Sangrur, it is clear that 200 bags of cement, which have been said by the Vigilance Department to be mis- appropriated by Shri Kundan Lal, JE (Retd.) the same cement has been consumed on the concerned Water Supply Scheme Kohrian and its recovery has also been made from the concerned contractor. Therefore, Shri Kundan Lal J.E.(Retd.) has not misappropriated 200 bags of cement. By sending copy of the Superintending Engineer Water Supply and Sanitation Halqa Sangrur's Crl.Rev.No. 1499 of 2007 5 letter No.11460 dated 31.8.2006 along with documents, it is requested that the Vigilance Department may kindly be informed regarding the afore stated position.” The departmental enquiry was conducted by the department in pursuance of letter dated 18.7.2005 written by Additional Secretary,vigilance, Punjab Government Vigilance Department (Vigilance Branch-3) to Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Water Supply and Sanitation Department (Buildings and Roads Branch-2). Vide the said letter, it was written by the Additional Secretary that the price of 200 bags of cement be immediately recovered from the petitioner under intimation to Vigilance Department. However, on enquiry, it transpired that the bags in question had been duly consumed on the water supply scheme, Kohrian. Since in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner had been found innocent, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law as now nothing survives against the petitioner to proceed against him in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2011 anita