Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Manish vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75684 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2017 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-
Madhubani
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Manish Son Of Sri Birendra Narayan Mahto Village- Kishori
Lal Chowk Ps- Madhubani Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The S.P Vigilance, Bihar, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2025
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
Vigilance.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the order
dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in Special Case No. 01 of 2019 arising
out of Madhubani Nagar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2017 whereby and
whereunder, the cognizance has been taken for the offence under
Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477(A) read with 120-B of the
I.P.C and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and another
person namely Lal Babu Singh.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
2/35
3. The brief facts relevant for the present case is that in
pursuance of the letter dated 16.05.2017 of the Executive
Engineer, Road Construction Department, Madhubani, the
Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, had submitted
a written report to the Officer In-charge, Madhubani Town Police
Station regarding the registration of an F.I.R against one
Ramanand Singh, the former Executive Engineer Building
Division, Madhubani under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 477(A) of
the Indian Penal Code for withdrawal of fund on 17.03.2006
without execution of work.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani vide letter no.
830 dated 07.04.2006 had requested the Building Construction
Department to initiate departmental enquiry against aforesaid
Ramanand Singh in the aforesaid regard. After enquiry, the Chief
Engineer, Building Construction Department found Ramanand
Singh, the then Executive Engineer, guilty of payment of fund to
the Contractor prior to execution of work and submitted report
vide letter no. 3220 dated 12.09.2011.
5. Further it is stated that for the aforesaid, the Hon'ble
Member Lokayukta, Bihar vide order dated 12.01.2017 directed
the authorities of Road Construction Department to lodge criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
3/35
case as well as certificate case for recovery of the amount which
was paid to the contractor without execution of the work.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the
informant, the F.I.R was lodged against one Ramanand Singh, the
then Executive Engineer, Building Division, Madhubani. One
Satya Narayan Pandey filed a complaint petition before the
Hon'ble Lokyukta, Bihar against the then Executive Engineer
Building Division, Madhubani for misappropriation of
Government money without execution of work. On the basis of the
aforesaid complaint, Lokayukta/Lok (Bhawan) Case No. 09 of
2008 titled 'Satya Narayan Pandey Vs. Executive Engineer,
Building Division, Madhubani' was registered.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the Building Construction Department vide its Letter No. 6112
dated 30.06.2011 intimated the office of Lokayukta Bihar that any
action against Sri Ramanand Singh could have been taken only by
his parent department namely the Road Construction Department.
Further, it is submitted that when the enquiry being conducted by
the Hon'ble Lokayukta, he did not make any head way previously
on account of the exchange of letters between the Building
Construction Department and the Road Construction Department,
then the Hon'ble Lokayukta vide order dated 12.01.2017 had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
4/35
viewed the matter seriously and shown displeasure against the
authorities of Road Construction Department. He further submits
that on 27.01.2017, the Road Construction Department sought
legal opinion from the Law Department to lodge FIR against
Ramanand Singh and also for filing a requisition under Public
Demand Recovery Act for recovery of embezzled amount from the
then Executive Engineer, Ramanand Singh. The matter was
examined by the Law Department and the file was sent to the
learned Advocate General to give opinion on the aforesaid.
8. It is next submitted that on 27.02.2017, the learned
Advocate General gave his opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, F.I.R must be lodged at the earliest
against the then Executive Engineer and others and for recovery of
the amount, Certificate Case under the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914 must be filed against concerned
officers of the department who has not put up the concerned file
within time for taking departmental action against Ramanand
Singh. All of them must be identified and show cause shall be
issued against them and departmental proceeding must be started
against those erring officials. He further submits that in pursuance
of the opinion of the learned Advocate General, the Secretary,
Road Construction Department obtained permission from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
5/35
concerned competent authority to lodge an FIR against Sri
Ramanand Singh and also to file a case under Public Demand
Recovery Act for recovery of embezzled amount and also to take
necessary action against the officials of the department who had
not put up the file within time for disposal of the departmental
proceeding initiated against accused Ramanand Singh after
inviting show cause from them.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
vide letter no. 3972 dated 05.05.2017 issued by the Road
Construction Department, a show cause was asked from the
petitioner in respect of departmental proceeding initiated against
Ramanand Singh. On 04.09.2017, the petitioner submitted his
show cause to the Road Construction Department stating therein
that there are no laches on his part in disposal of the concerned file
and concerned letters. He next submitted that vide memo no.13265
dated 18.10.2017 of the General Administrative Department,
charges were served upon the petitioner who was working as an
Assistant at the relevant time, and he was directed to submit
explanation within a fortnight. On 07.11.2017, the petitioner
submitted his show cause to the General Administrative
Department denying the charges leveled against him and vide
memo No.15188 dated 30.11.2017 of General Administrative
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
6/35
Department, departmental proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner and on 06.02.2018 and 17.04.2018, the petitioner
submitted his explanation before the Conducting Officer stating
therein that according to the allotment of work on 23.07.2010, the
charge of the concerned file was not given to the petitioner for
taking departmental action against Ramanand Singh. It is
submitted that the concerned file was initiated in the year 2008 and
it was not handed over to the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Letter No. 9996 dated 09.11.2011 and Letter No. 5606 dated
18.07.2012
issued by the Building Construction Department for
taking necessary action against Ramanand Singh with proper
photostat copy of enquiry report of the Chief Engineer, North
Division Building Construction Department were duly put up in
one file related to Ramanand Singh, therefore, it is contended that
there is no negligence on his part in disposal of the concerned file.
11. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the conducting officer submitted his enquiry report
on 17.05.2018 in which, out of two charges, he had not found
charge No.1 proved and found charge No.2 partially proved,
though he found that there was no malafide intention on the part of
the petitioner and after agreeing with the report of Conducting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
7/35
Officer, the General Administrative Department vide order
contained in Memo no. 9935 dated 26.07.2018 of corrigendum
memo No.12312 dated 13.09.2018 had awarded minor punishment
i.e., censure for 2012-2013 and stoppage of one increment with the
non-cumulative effect.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter
submitted that vide order dated 09.10.2017, it was observed by the
Lokayukta that though an enquiry was immediately initiated by
Lokayukta, Bihar in the month of June 2008 but it was only on
account of slackness on the part of the officials of Building
Construction Department that nothing was done for the next three
years. He further submits that vide order dated 15.01.2018 the
Lokayukta observed that the main person namely Sri Ramanand
Singh, the then Executive Engineer who in connivance with the
Contractor and Engineer had embezzled the Government money
which should have been a good ground for the Vigilance
Department to lodge FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act in which all the officers including the Chief
Engineers who have colluded and thereby abated in commission of
the offence can be brought under the purview of the case. It was
further observed that if such prosecution is lodged by the vigilance
department it will not confine itself to the three persons against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
8/35
whom the police has already lodged Madhubani Town P.S. Case
No. 126 of 2017 but it may extend to each and every person who
have given shelter or have colluded for suppressing the
misappropriation/ embezzlement of the government funds.
13. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in pursuance of the respective orders of the
Lokayukta, Bihar, the petitioner has been made non-FIR accused
in Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 126 of 2017 for not putting up
the file within time of departmental action against accused
Ramanand Singh. He further submits that the enquiry report in
respect of initiation of Departmental Proceeding against Sri
Ramanand was submitted by the Chief Engineer, Building
Construction Department to the Road Construction Department on
09.11.2011 and by that time, the proceeding itself had become
infructuous as time-barred.
14. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the
Road Construction Division and not in the concerned department
in which the defalcation had been done at the relevant period. The
aforesaid Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Building
Construction Department, Madhubani had retired from service on
31.10.2007. So far allegation against the petitioner that he has not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
9/35
taken prompt action in proceeding against the accused person in
disposal of the departmental proceeding, it is stated that a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the
aforesaid regard and he was asked to explain the matter and after
agreeing with the enquiry report of the Conducting Officer, the
disciplinary authority disposed of the departmental proceeding by
awarding minor punishments. He further submits that no case of
misappropriation/ embezzlement of Government money is made
out against the petitioner in the instant case and considering that
defalcated amount for which the aforesaid demand
Rs.33,39,587.50/- has been attached by way of one time recovery
against the due amount.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that the petitioner is presently working as Section
Officer in Art, Cultural and Youth Department, Patna, and
considering the nature of allegation which may give rise to
administrative action, this Court had been pleased to allow
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the instant case vide order
dated 18.12.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69659 of 2018 and from
perusal of the F.I.R. itself, no case is made out against the
petitioner. So far allegations against the petitioner that he is
responsible for delaying the process of file for initiating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
10/35
departmental proceeding against Ramanand Singh give rise to
administrative action after which they have already been punished,
the matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department and
charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons including
the petitioner under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and
471(A) I.P.C. and under Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(d) Prevention of
Corruption Act. The allegations made in the charge sheet and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and do not make out a case against the
petitioner and the learned Special Judge without applying his
judicial mind has taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections
against the accused persons including the petitioner vide the
impugned order dated 29.05.2023. He further submits that the
impugned order is bad in law as well as on fact and is in example
of non-application of mind by the learned Special Judge.
16. The learned counsel for the Vigilance Department
has filed a counter affidavit and has submitted that the petitioner
Manoj Kumar Manish, the then Assistant, Road Construction
Department, has filed the instant application for quashing the order
of cognizance dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge
Vigilance, Muzaffarpur against the petitioner Manoj Kumar
Manish under section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477(A) read with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
11/35
120(B) of I.P.C. and under section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of P.C, Act
1988 in Special Case No. 01 of 2019 arising out of Madhubani
Nagar P.S case 126 of 2017 dated 19.05.2017, whereby and where
under the Court has taken cognizance against the accused persons
namely Shri Lal Babu Singh, the then, Contractor, whereas vide
the aforesaid order, cognizance under section 217 of I.P.C. was
taken against the other accused persons namely Kishore Ranjan
Sinha, Gopal Krishan, Sunil Kumar Sinha, Ram Babu Choudhary
whereas showing rest accused persons namely Ramanand Singh,
Sudhir Kumar, Jai Ram Rajak and Pramod Bihari as dead.
18. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the
complainant Manish Kumar along with seven persons had jointly
filed a complaint petition to the District Magistrate, Madhubani on
01.04.2006 in which it was alleged that the then Executive
Engineer of the Building Construction Department, Madhubani
had withdrawn the Government money without the completion of
repair work of non-residential Block Development Building
located at Jainagar, Harlakhi, Basopatti and Madhawapur of
Madhubani district issued four cheques for Rs. 4,32,530/-, Rs.
4,90,639/-, Rs. 4,62,328/-and Rs. 4,23,804/- respectively on
17.03.2006 in the name of M/s Ram Janki Construction, Dulapatti,
Madhubani. The said money was withdrawn by M/s Ram Janki
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
12/35
Construction, Dulapatti, Madhubani without completing the said
work and therefore, then Executive Engineer of the Building
Construction Department, Madhubani has caused wrongful gain to
the M/s Ram Janki Construction, Dulapatti, Madhubani and
wrongful loss to the government.
19. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on the
aforesaid allegations mentioned in the complaint petition, the
District Magistrate, Madhubani appointed Shri Gajanand Mishra
the then, Dy. Collector, Establishment, Madhubani to conduct an
enquiry and after the completion of the enquiry, a report was
submitted from which it became clear that the government money
was withdrawn without the completion of the said work and,
therefore, he found the allegations of financial irregularities
committed by the then Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Department, Madhubani to be true. The District Magistrate,
Madhubani by annexing the aforesaid enquiry report in his Letter
No. 830 dated 07.04.2006 communicated the same to the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Building Construction Department,
Bihar, Patna for initiating strict disciplinary action against the
delinquent public servants for committing the said financial
irregularities. The Deputy Secretary, Building Construction
Department on receipt of Letter No. 830 dated 07.04.2006 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
13/35
District Magistrate, Madhubani by annexing the same in his Letter
No. 3220 dated 16.04.2008 addressed to the Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department had requested him for initiating
departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules
against the delinquent public servant namely Sri Ramanand Singh,
the then Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Madhubani, but no action was initiated by the Road Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna against Ramanand Singh, the then
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Madhubani. Further, the Joint Secretary, Building Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna vide Letter No. 9996 dated 09.11.2011
by annexing the enquiry report submitted to the department by the
Chief Engineer (North), Building Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna contained in Letter No. 1642 dated 12.09.2011 requested the
Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna
for initiating departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) of Bihar
Pension Rules against Ramanand Singh, the then Executive
Engineer, Building Construction Department, Madhubani (Retd.).
20. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
Vigilance that the matter of said financial irregularities committed
by the delinquent public servant of the Building Construction
Department, Madhubani was also being heard by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
14/35
Lokayukta, Bihar Patna in the case 01/ लोक० (भवन) 09/2008, filed
by Satnarayan Pandey, in which vide order dated 12.01.2017, the
Hon’ble Lokayukta, Bihar, has ordered the authorities to file F.I.R.,
against the delinquent public servant, the then Executive Engineer,
Building Construction Department, Madhubani (Retd.) and also
for recovery of defalcated amount under Public Demand Recovery
Act. The Road Construction Department which was the parent
department of delinquent public servant Ramanand Singh, after
seeking approval in the file from the competent authority,
authorized Sri Satendra Prasad, the then Assistant Engineer, Road
Construction Department Madhubani to lodge F.I.R against Sri
Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Building
Construction Department, Madhubani (Retd.), thereafter, F.I.R.
was registered against Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive
Engineer, Building Construction Department (hereinafter B.C.D.),
Madhubani (Retd.) bearing Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 126 of
2017 dated 19.05.2017.
21. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
vigilance that during the course of investigation, the following
evidence has surfaced which has been stated under paragraph 12 of
the counter affidavit:-
“(i) That, Sri Satyendra Kumar, the then Assistant
Engineer, R.C.D. Madhubani, the informant of this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
15/35case has stated before the I.O. that Sri Ramanand
Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Building
Construction Department, Madhubani (Retd.) has
issued cheques to the contractor of M/s Ram Janki
Construction, Dulapatti, Madhubani on 17.03.2006
and the same was withdrawn by the contractor on
20.03.2006 but on that date no work was initiated,
the same became clear from the enquiry conducted
by Shri Gajanand Mishra, the then, Dy. Collector,
Establishment, Madhubani contained in the letter
no.830 dated 04.04.2006 issued by D.M.,
Madhubani. (Para 30 of the C.D). Sri Sanjay
Choudhary, Executive Engineer, R.C.D, Mahubani in
his statement before the I.O. suggests that he
received a letter no. 3968 dated 05.05.2017 vide
which he was directed by the Additional Secretary,
R.C.D., Bihar, Patna to register F.I.R. against the
accused Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive
Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Madhubani(Retd) in the light of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Bihar dated 12.01.2017 and
to register a certificate case against him under
Public Demand Recovery Act, for the recovery of the
defalcated amount. (Page 34 to 35 of the
application), (Para-31 of the CD)
Sri Manoj Singh the then Member, Panchayat Samiti,
Jainagar has stated before the I.O., that government
money was withdrawn by M/s Ram Janki Construction,
Dulapatti, Madhubani without the completion of the
renovation/ repair work of non-residential building of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
16/35all four block located in Jaynagar, Harlakhi,
Madhwapur and Basopatti. (para-125 of CD)
(ii) That, the I.O. of the case has mentioned the
supervision note of the SDPO, Sadar Madhubani
from which it became clear that government money
was withdrawn by the contractor prior to the
completion of the work and thereafter the work was
initiated post-facto. In order to cover up the wrong
doing M/s Ram Janki Construction, Dulapatti,
Madhubani and Sri Sudhir Kumar the then Junior
Engineer, was found guilty. (Para-51 of CD)
(iii) That, in the case 01/ लोक० (भवन) -09/2008, vide
order dated 15.01.2018 the Hon’ble Lokayukta,
Bihar Patna has observed that :-
“It should be a good ground for the
Vigilance Department to lodge First
Information Report under the Provisions of the
Prevention of corruption Act in which all the
officers including the Chief Engineers, who
have colluded and thereby abated in the
commission of the offence can be brought
under the purview of the case. It is with this
end in sight that the Road Construction
Department is directed to approach the
Vigilance Department for lodging the First
Information Report against Sri Ramanand
Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Sudhir
Kumar, Junior Engineer and M/s Ram Janki
Construction, Dulapatti, Madhubani, under
the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
17/35so that the Vigilance Department may conduct
its preliminary enquiry and thereafter also
institute First Information Report for the
offences punishable both under the Prevention
of Corruption Act and the Indian penal Code.”
In the light of the directions given by the Hon’ble
Lokayukta, Bihar Patna, to the Vigilance
Department, Bihar, Patna, Vigilance enquiry No. R &
B-01/2017 लो०नन०/मधु बनी was instituted in the
bureau conducted by Sri Kamod Prasad, Dy. S.P. on
three charges i.e.,
(a) that, despite the letter no. 830 dated
07.04.2006 addressed to the Joint Secretary,
BCD, Bihar Patna by the D.M., Madhubani for
initiating departmental proceedings against
Sri Ramanand Singh, the then executive
Engineer, no such proceedings initiated from
2006 to 2011
(b) the Joint Secretary, BCD, Bihar Patna by
annexing the letter no. 830 dated 07.04.2006
vide his letter 3220 dated 16-04-2008
requested the Principal Secretary, RCD, Bihar,
Patna for initiating departmental proceedings
u/s 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules against
Sri Ramanand Singh, the then executive
Engineer, after his retirement in 2007.
(c). that, no action has been taken by the
respective department from 2008 to 2015
against Sri Ramanand Singh, the then
executive Engineer.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
18/35
After completion of the Vigilance enquiry, a report
was submitted before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Bihar
Patna contained in the letter 1106 dated 21.07.2018.
(C.D. No. 33 para 192 ). In the light of the directions
passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Bihar Patna vide
order dated 24-07-2018, Vigilance Investigation
Bureau, Patna was entrusted to conduct further
investigation in the Madhubani Town P.S. case no.
126/2017. (CD No. 33 Para-196)”
(iv) In the light of the directions passed by the
Lokayukta, Bihar Patna vide order dated 24-07-
2018, the former I.O of the case vide letter no. 1493
dated 08.10.2018 petitioned to the Court of Learned
Chief Judicaial Magistrate, Madhubani to transfer
the case in the Spl. Court Vigilance, North Bihar,
Muzaffarpur because in the investigation section
13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 was
incorporated. (CD No 33 Para-196)
Sri Kamod Prasad, Dy. S.P. was appointed the I.O of
the instant Madhubani P.S. case No. 126/2017.(C.D.
No.193) and has received the (C.D no. 01 to 32) from
the predecessor/ former I.O. From the perusal of the
C.D. it appears that the report of the enquiry has
been incorporated in (C.D no. 33. para 192). From
the perusal of the file of B.C.D. Bihar it became clear
that B.C.D. Bihar vide departmental letter no. 5127
dated 30.08.2006, letter no. 6259 dated 04.11.2006,
letter no.204 dated 08.01.2007, letter no. 1769 dated
26.02.2007 and letter no. 5870 dated 22.06.2007
along with the demi Official letter no. 1033 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
19/35
08.02.2008 directed the then Chief Engineer, (North)
for conducting enquiry in the financial irregularities
of Rs. 15,06,812/- committed by the accused
petitioner and others in the renovation/ repair work
of non-residential building of all four block located
in Jaynagar, Harlakhi, Madhwapur and Basopatti
but despite the said request the accused Chief
Engineers then posted namely 1. Sri Pramod Bihari
Asthana 2. Sri Kishore Ranjan Sinha 3. Sri Jairam
Razak and 4. Sri Gopal Krishna failed to submit
report to the department in order to shield the main
accused Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive
Engineer by abusing their official position, for which
they were found guilty and made as non-F.I.R
accused.
Thereafter, B.C.D. Bihar got the matter enquired by a
technical team consisting of Sri Ramesh Kumar,
Chief Engineer, Patna, Sri Navin Kumar
Superintending Engineer, Darbhanga and Sri Sunil
Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Darbhanga who
submitted his report vide letter no. 1642 dated
12.09.2011 from which it became clear that a sum of
Rs. 15,06,821/- was criminally misappropriated by
Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer in
criminal conspiracy with Sudhir Kumar, the then
Junior Engineer and Sri Lal Babu Singh Contractor
of M/s Ram Janki Construction.
(v) The Road Construction Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna became the administrative
department of Sri Ramanand Singh, the then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
20/35
Executive Engineer after his retirement on
31.10.2007. The Joint Secretary, B.C.D, Bihar Patna
by annexing in its letter no.3220 dated 16.04.2008,
the letter no. 830 dated 07.04.2006 of D.M.,
Madhubani and has requested the Principal
Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna for starting
departmental proceeding u/s 43(B) of Bihar Pension
Rules, but the same was deliberately kept pending in
the department till year 2015 despite of the gravity of
the allegations mentioned in the said letter of Joint
Secretary, B.C.D. Bihar Patna was known to then
posted Assistants of Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna namely (1). Sri Sunil
Kumar Sinha (2). Sri Ram Babu Choudhary and (3).
Sri Manoj Kumar Manish, but they did not move it in
the appropriate file of the department before the
competent authority for taking necessary action.
(vi) From perusal of the file no.- 49/2008, in the
investigation it became clear that the letter no.3220
dated 16.04.2008 of B.C.D, Bihar Patna which was
received in the Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna on 24.04.2008. That the
said file was moved till 13.10.2008. Thereafter, then
posted Assistants of Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna namely (1). Sri Sunil
Kumar Sinha (2). Sri Rambabu Choudhary and (3).
Sri Manoj Kumar Manish did not present the
aforesaid letter in the file bearing no. 49/2008
(related to the said subject matter of the letter of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
21/35
B.C.D, Bihar Patna) before the authorities on time
despite acquainted with the said letter of B.C.D,
Bihar Patna and therefore the matter was
intentionally not moved in the appropriate, the said
file was kept pending till 2015 without any action
being initiated against Sri Ramanand Singh, the then
Executive Engineer, accused. Therefore, no timely
proceedings could be initiated u/s 43(B) of Bihar
Pension Rules, against Sri Ramanand Singh, the then
Executive Engineer because (1). Sri Sunil Kumar
Sinha (2). Sri Rambabu Choudhary and (3). Sri
Manoj Kumar Manish had colluded with the accused
Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer,
Madhubani (Retd.) and shielded him from the further
proceedings in the Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar Patna. The Hon’ble Lokayukta,
Bihar taking cognizance of the aforesaid facts vide
order dated 15.01.2018 has observed that:-
“It goes without saying that such
prosecution to be lodged by the Vigilance
Department will not confine itself to the three
persons against whom the police case has
been lodged vide Madhubani P.S. case No.
126/2017 but it may extend to each and every
person who have been given shelter or have
colluded for suppressing the
misappropriation / embezzlement of the
government fund to the tune of Rs. 15,06,812/-
for a period of over ten years. ”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
22/35
(vii) That, the Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna has conducted
departmental proceedings vide letter no. 8453 dated
25- 09-2017 against (1). Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha (2).
Sri Rambabu Choudhary and (3). Sri Manoj Kumar
Manish.”
22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Vigilance that the Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna in its finding revealed that the accused petitioner Sri
Manoj Kumar Manish has not presented the file no. 49 of 2008 on
time before the competent authority and by doing so misled the
authorities, for which departmental proceedings vide Letter No.
8453 dated 25.09.2017 was initiated against the accused petitioner
Sri Manoj Kumar Manish. The General Administrative
Department, Bihar, Patna, vide its Memo No. 15652 dated
08.12.2017 conducted departmental proceeding against the
accused petitioner Sri Manoj Kumar Manish. He further submits
that the I.O. of the case has received the sanction for prosecution
against the accused petitioner Sri Manoj Kumar Manish, the then
Assistant, R.C.D, Bihar, Patna from the competent authority dated
23.02.2021 under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for the offence
committed by him under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C.
Act 1988
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
23/35
23. It is next submitted that the I.O. had submitted a
Charge Sheet No. 75/2022 dated 03-012-2022 against the accused
petitioner Sri Manoj Kumar Manish in the Court of Special Judge,
North Bihar, Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, the learned Court after
perusing the charge sheet and after duly applying judicial mind
had taken cognizance vide the impugned order.
24. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
Vigilance that the B.C.D, Bihar in the departmental proceedings
presented evidence before the authorities and stated that the action
taking report related to the financial irregularities committed by
the accused Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer,
Madhubani was communicated to the R.C.D. Bihar vide letter no.
9996 dated 09.11.2011 and a reminder vide letter no.5606 dated
18.07.2012 was also communicated to it, but the said letter of
B.C.D, Bihar was not presented by the accused petitioner Sri
Manoj Kumar Manish in the connected file no – 49 of 2008 rather
he has presented the said letter in the file no. 20 of 2008. The
content and subject matter of file no. 20 of 2008 was entirely
different from file no.-49 of 2008. It is alleged that the accused-
petitioner Manoj Kumar Manish had intentionally presented the
said letter of B.C.D., Bihar in file no. 20 of 2008 in order to
conceal the real facts from the competent authority at R.C.D.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
24/35
Bihar in order to mislead them and also initiated a wrong noting in
file no. 20 of 2008 and therefore made it directionless, due to
which during the course of hearing of the Case 01/ लोक० (भवन) 09
of 2008 before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the position of the
competent authorities of the Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, Bihar became otiose.
25. It is next submitted in the counter affidavit that the
presenting officer in the departmental proceedings had
acknowledged the aforesaid facts of B.C.D., Bihar and found the
charge to be true against the accused petitioner Sri Manoj Kumar
Manish and does not exonerate him of the said charge. The
General Administrative Department, Bihar vide Letter No.9935
dated 26.07.2018 passed the order against the accused petitioner
Manoj Kumar Manish by which it has found the charges partially
proved and due to which order of censure was passed in addition
to awarding punishment withholding of one annual increment
under Rule 14 (V) Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 2005.
26. It is next submitted that the points raised by the
accused petitioner is only to mislead the Court whereas there is
sufficient material on record on the basis of which the order of
cognizance dated 29.05.2023 was passed. It is argued by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
25/35
learned counsel that the evidence which would be placed before
the court during the course of trial, could then only be weighed
and tested to arrive at the truth.
27. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the
vigilance that the in view of the facts and circumstances, the
petition of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and liable to be
rejected.
28. In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the
Vigilance, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit and has
submitted that in reply to the statements made in Paragraph
No.12(v) to 12(vii) of the counter affidavit under reply it is stated
that:-
“(i) That action against Sri Rama Nand Singh the
then Executive Engineer could not be taken within 4
years from the date of occurrence i.e. 17.03.2006 as
required under section 43(B) of the Bihar Pension
Rules and it became “time barred” and the enquiry
report of Chief Engineer North Bihar Division and
Building Construction Department, Bihar remained
unavailable.
(ii) That on 23.07.2010 the petitioner was instructed
by the Department to see the Table work of Sri Ram
Babu Choudhary Assistant but the charge of
concerned file 49/2008 was not given to the
petitioner and it is also relevant to state here that
before taking the charge of the concerned table by
the petitioner the action against Sri Rama Nand
Singh the Executive Engineer under section 43(B) of
the Bihar Pension Rules become time barred.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
26/35
(iii) That show cause was asked from the petitioner in
pursuance of R.C.D.’s letter No.3972 dated
05.05.2017 (Annexure-2 of the main petition). The
petitioner submitted his show cause.
(iv) That a departmental proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner and a copy of the charge was
served upon the petitioner (Annexure-3 of the main
petition).
(V) That the charge No.1 was that the proceeding
initiated against Sri Rama Nand Singh the then
Executive Engineer for embezzlement of Government
money could not be completed within stipulated time
as per provision of section 43(B) of Bihar Pension
Rule and it of the enquiry report.
And
Charge No.2 was that on 23.07.2010 the proceeding
file No.49/2008 relating to Sri Rama Nand Singh, the
then Executive Engineer Building Division,
Madhubani was allotted to the petitioner but the
petitioner instead of the aforesaid file forwarded File
No.20/2008 though the subject matter of both the file
was different.
(vi) That the petitioner submitted his show cause in
detail explaining his innocence (Annexure-5 of the
main petition)
(vii) That the conducting officer who is an I.A.S.
Officer after considering the entire materials
available on record came to the conclusion that the
charge No.1 has not been proved and so far charge
No.2 is concerned the file No.20/2008 which was
forwarded by the petitioner in place of File
No.49/2008, Name, Designation and year of
allegation was similar and the mistake appears to be
not deliberate(opinion of the Conducting Officer at
Page-117 of the main petition).
(viii) That the Disciplinary authority having gone
through the enquiry report awarded minor
punishment of censure and stoppage of one
increment with non-cumulative effect.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
27/35
(ix) That it is stated that a departmental proceeding
was also initiated against Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha the
then Asst. Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna and Sri Ram Babu Choudhary the then Asst.
Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna and
after completion of the Departmental Proceeding,
the Disciplinary Authority vide order as contained in
memo No.16348 dated 22.12.2017 awarded minor
punishment of “Censure” for the service period
(2008-2009) to Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha and vide
memo No.63.61 dated 16.05.2018 awarded major
punishment of stoppage of two increments with the
cumulative effect to Sri Ram Babu Choudhary the
then Asst. Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna.”
29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the petitioner has already explained the reasons
before the Conducting Officer and the disciplinary authority and
thereafter considering the explanation of the petitioner minor
punishment was awarded to the petitioner. He further submits that
the charge for which charge sheet has been submitted by the
Vigilance, has already been decided by the disciplinary authority
and minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that during the investigation by the Vigilance
Department, Government of Bihar no direct or indirect evidence
has been found which connects the petitioner in the alleged
offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
28/35
31. I have heard and considered the submissions of the
parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was proceeded
against for the same charges in a departmental proceeding and the
petitioner has been held not guilty but has been held to be
negligent.
32. The following is the finding in the department
proceeding:
” परं तु भवन ननमररण नवभरग से प्ररपत दोनो पत्रो कर नवषय
एवं उपसथरनपत की गयी सं नचकर सं खयर-ननग०/सररर-4 (भवन)
ननग० थर० को 20/08 के नवषय के नबलकुल अलग-अलग होने
की सपषटतर नहीं होनर अपने बचरव बयरन मे कहर जर रहर है ,
वह पूरी तरह सवीकरर योगय नही है । यनद नवषय के अलग-
अलग होने की सपषटतर नहीं है तो नवषय के नबलकुल समरन
होने की भी सपषटतर नहीं है सरथ ही प्रसतरव उपसथरनपत
करते समय सं नचकर के तथयो के सरथ-सरथ प्ररपत पत्र. के
तथयो कर भी धयरन रखनर चरनहए। भवन ननमररण नवभरग के
पत्रो के प्रसं ग के तहत अं नकत पत्ररंक एवं नदनरंक को भी
पूणरतः आरोप पत्र एवं वचरव बयरन से परे नही कहर जर
सकतर है । अतः आरोनपत सहरयक के बचरव बयरन, नवभरगीय
मं तवय एवं आरोनपत सहरयक की प्रनतनक् रयर से सपषट होतर
है नक करयरवरह सहरयक दररर भवन ननमररध नवभरग के पत्रो के
उपसथरपन एवं समनपरत प्रसतरव मे गलती की गयी है ,भले ही
वह जरन-बूझकर न नकयर गयर हौ। समनपरत नकये गये बचरव
बयरन के आलोक मे करयरवरह सहरयक पूणरतः दोषमु कत नहीं
नकये जर सकते है ।”
33. No materials have come in the entire proceeding in
the investigation to indicate that the petitioner had any mens rea to
commit the crime, or that he had conspired with the main accused
in putting up the different file. In fact, after examination of the oral
and documentary evidence, it has been held in the departmental
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
29/35
proceeding that the petitioner may be guilty of only negligence and
consequently minor punishment was imposed.
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
EOW, CBI reported as (2020) 9 SCC 636 has held as follows:
“8. A number of judgments have held that the
standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being
based on preponderance of probability is somewhat
lower than the standard of proof in a criminal
proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [P.S.
Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
897] , the question before the Court was posed as
follows: (SCC pp. 2-3, para 3)
“3. The short question that arises for our
consideration in this appeal is whether the
respondent is justified in pursuing the
prosecution against the appellant under
Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
notwithstanding the fact that on an
identical charge the appellant was
exonerated in the departmental
proceedings in the light of a report
submitted by the Central Vigilance
Commission and concurred by the Union
Public Service Commission.”
9. This Court then went on to state: (P.S.
Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 5, para 17)
“17. At the outset we may point out that the
learned counsel for the respondent could
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
30/35not 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.”
10. This being the case, the Court then held:
(P.S. Rajya case [P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9
SCC 1 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 897] , SCC p. 9, para 23)
“23. Even though all these facts including
the report of the Central Vigilance
Commission were brought to the notice of
the High Court, unfortunately, the High
Court took a view [Prabhu Saran
Rajya v. State of Bihar, Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 5212 of 1992, order
dated 3-8-1993 (Pat)] that the issues raised
had to be gone into in the final proceedings
and the report of the Central Vigilance
Commission, exonerating the appellant of
the same charge in departmental
proceedings would not conclude the
criminal case against the appellant. We
have already held that for the reasons
given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the
criminal proceedings initiated against the
appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we
do not agree with the view taken by the
High Court as stated above. These are the
reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 for
allowing the appeal and quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings and giving
consequential reliefs.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
31/35
11. In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.
[Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC
581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721], this Court held as
follows: (SCC pp. 594-96, paras 26, 29 & 31)
“26. We may observe that the standard of
proof in a criminal case is much higher
than that of the adjudication proceedings.
The Enforcement Directorate has not been
able to prove its case in the adjudication
proceedings and the appellant has been
exonerated on the same allegation. The
appellant is facing trial in the criminal
case. Therefore, in our opinion, the
determination of facts in the adjudication
proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant
in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [B.N.
Kashyap v. Crown, 1944 SCC OnLine Lah
46 : AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had
not considered the effect of a finding of fact
in a civil case over the criminal cases and
that will be evident from the following
passage of the said judgment: (SCC
OnLine Lah: AIR p. 27)
‘… I must, however, say that in
answering the question, I have only
referred to civil cases where the
actions are in personam and not
those where the proceedings or
actions are in rem. Whether a
finding of fact arrived at in such
proceedings or actions would be
relevant in criminal cases, it is
unnecessary for me to decide in this
case. When that question arises for
determination, the provisions of
Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will
have to be carefully examined.’
29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in
accepting the broad submission of Mr
Malhotra that the finding in an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
32/35
adjudication proceeding is not binding in
the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A
person held liable to pay penalty in
adjudication proceedings cannot
necessarily be held guilty in a criminal
trial. Adjudication proceedings are
decided on the basis of preponderance of
evidence of a little higher degree whereas
in a criminal case the entire burden to
prove beyond all reasonable doubt lies on
the prosecution.
31. It is trite that the standard of proof
required in criminal proceedings is higher
than that required before the adjudicating
authority and in case the accused is
exonerated before the adjudicating
authority whether his prosecution on the
same set of facts can be allowed or not is
the precise question which falls for
determination in this case.”
12. After referring to various judgments, this
Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para
38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam
Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598)
“38. The ratio which can be culled out
from these decisions can broadly be stated as
follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
prosecution can be launched
simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings
is not necessary before initiating criminal
prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and
criminal proceedings are independent in
nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing
prosecution in the adjudication
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
33/35proceedings is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the
Enforcement Directorate is not
prosecution by a competent court of law to
attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section 300 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication
proceedings in favour of the person facing
trial for identical violation will depend
upon the nature of finding. If the
exoneration in adjudication proceedings is
on technical ground and not on merit,
prosecution may continue; and (vii) In
case of exoneration, however, on merits
where the allegation is found to be not
sustainable at all and the person held
innocent, criminal prosecution on the
same set of facts and circumstances
cannot be allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases.”
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.,
(2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p.
598, para 39)
“39. In our opinion, therefore, the
yardstick would be to judge as to whether
the allegation in the adjudication
proceedings as well as the proceeding for
prosecution is identical and the
exoneration of the person concerned in
the adjudication proceedings is on merits.
In case it is found on merit that there is no
contravention of the provisions of the Act
in the adjudication proceedings, the trial
of the person concerned shall be an abuse
of the process of the court.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
34/35
35. The action against the main accused Ramanand
Singh had become time barred on 17.03.2010. It is an admitted
case that the petitioner was not entrusted the file on 17.03.2010.
For the first time on 23.07.2010, the petitioner was entrusted by
the Department to see the table work of Sri Ram Babu Choudhary,
Assistant but the charge of the concerned file was not given to the
petitioner. Before taking charge of the concerned table by the
petitioner, the action against Ramanand Singh, the then Executive
Engineer under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules had become
time-barred. The charge no. 1 was that the proceeding initiated
against Sri Ramanand Singh, the then Executive Engineer for
embezzlement of government money could not be completed
within stipulated time as per provision of Rule 43(B) of Bihar
Pension Rule, therefore, the allegations against the petitioner
which was with regard to charge no. 1 has failed. A person held
liable for minor punishment of censure, that too, on account of
acting negligently, in the department proceedings, cannot in my
opinion and in the facts that emerge from the present case be
fastened with criminal liability.
36. The standard of proof for proceeding against an
accused in a criminal case is much more than what is required in a
departmental proceeding. In the present case, considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75684 of 2023 dt.16-07-2025
35/35
finding of the departmental proceeding wherein a categorical
conclusion has been arrived at to the effect that the petitioner had
acted negligently and the only thread connecting the present
petitioner is that he had deliberately not forwarded the concerned
file to the competent authority and instead had forwarded a
different file in itself could not attract criminal liability. Moreover
the petitioner is not alleged to have committed the defalcation/
embezzlement of government funds.
37. In view of the foregoing discussions and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari (supra), the order taking cognizance is bad in the eyes of
Law and therefore the same is unsustainable. Accordingly the
order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in Special Case No. 01 of
2019 arising out of Madhubani Nagar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2017 is
hereby quashed.
38. The application stands allowed.
39. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. Uploading Date 29.07.2025 Transmission Date 29.07.2025