IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16993 of 2009 Dinesh Kumar Pankaj aged about 47 years, son of Shri Panchi Lal Roy, R/o Vill- Mohanpur, P.S. Raghopur, Dist.- Vaishali, at present posted and working as Block Education Extension officer, Tarapur, P.S.Tarapur, Dist. Munger. -----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna Mangle’s Road, Patna. 4. District Magistrate-cum-Returning officer, Munger at Munger. 5. Superintendent of police, Munger at Munger. 6. Superintendent of Education, Munger at Munger. 7. Incharge police station, Tarapur, Dist. Munger at Tarapur. ---Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Alim Jang Khan, Advocate. For the State : None. ----------- 02 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. giving rise to Tarapur P.S. Case no. 30 of 2009, instituted under Section 134 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ( herein after referred to as “the Act”), and Under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 ( herein after referred to as “the Act”). Section 134 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under:- “134. Breaches of official duty in connection with elections.- (1) if any person to whom this section applies is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. [(1-A) An offence punishable under sub- section (1) shall be cognizable.] (2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any such person for damages in respect of any such act or omission as aforesaid. (3) The persons to whom this section applies are the [district election officers, returning officers], assistant returning officers, presiding officers, polling officers, and any other person 2 appointed to perform any duty in connection with the receipt of nominations of withdrawal of candidatures, or the recording or counting of votes at an election; and the expression “ official duty” shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly, but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by or under the Act.” “Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 reads as under:- “32. Nomination of candidates for election.- Any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the Constitution and this Act [ or under the provisions of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, as the case may be.]” It appears from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. that the petitioner absented himself from duty resulting in obstruction in discharge of election duties. With these allegations F.I.R. was lodged as would appear from the narration part of the F.I.R. (at page 15). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner left the headquarter after filing an application seeking leave. The defence of the petitioner can well be investigated by the police in the present case. The said defence cannot be a ground for quashing the F.I.R. itself. It is next contended that the petitioner has already been departmentally proceeded against and punished and as such present prosecution is hit by the principle of double jeopardy. Said contention is noticed only to be rejected. Departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding are two different and distinct proceedings. In a departmental proceeding it is to be assessed and 3 judged whether the employee has committed any misconduct and is therefore fit to be retained in service or not. In a criminal proceeding it is to be seen whether the accused has committed the offence(s) or not and therefore liable to be punished thereunder. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)