WP(C) 4163/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTIC B P KATAKEY Heard Mr I Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for Education Department, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the first information r eport(FIR) dated 20th July, 2011 lodged by the Director of Madrassa Education, A ssam, Kahilipara with the officer-in-charge of the Mankachar police station requ esting him to register a case against the petitioner alleging misappropriation o f a sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand) only and to investigate into it a nd try to recover and deposit the same if so recovered. The ground on which the FIR has been challenged is that in the previous two reports so submitted by two authorities although the petitioner was found to be responsible for misappropriation of government fund and for which he was rem oved from the office of the Superintendent(incharge), a further enquiry had been conducted by the Director, who had given a clean chit to the petitioner. Accord ing to petitioner, the Director having given a clean chit could not have lodged the FIR on 20.7.2011. It appears that there are certain allegations against the petitioner abo ut misappropriation of government fund for which on earlier occasions two report s were submitted by the authority after making an enquiry with the finding that the petitioner misappropriated the government fund for which he was removed from the office of the Superintendent(incharge) vide order dated 13th June 2007 whic h, though had been in challenge in WP(C) no.3131/ 2007, a Single Bench of this C ourt vide order dated 3rd September, 2007 disposed of that writ petition without granting any relief as claimed therein. In the said order, it was observed that in two earlier reports there was a finding against the petitioner relating to t he misappropriation of government fund. The Director, even if in a subsequent en quiry conducted by him had found that the petitioner as not responsible for the misappropriation of government fund, a further enquiry was conducted by the Depu ty Commissioner, who, had recorded the finding that it was the petitioner who wa s responsible for misappropriation of certain government fund. The Director, the refore, lodged the FIR on 20.7.2011 alleging misappropriation of government fund by the petitioner, which has to be investigated by the investigating agency. Su ch investigation would also be beneficial to the petitioner as the allegation of misappropriation levelled against him would be cleared in the investigation if he had not misappropriated any government fund. That being the position and there being an allegation of misappropriatio n of government fund, I do not find any merit to interfere with the FIR lodged b y the Director or the investigation so proposed to be conducted on the basis of the said FIR. It would also be open to the disciplinary authority to proceed aga inst the petitioner where the petitioner would definitely get a reasonable oppor tunity to demonstrate that he had not committed any misconduct. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.