IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52827 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2011 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Anjani Kumar Mishra Son of Late Madhav Mishra, residence of Village P.S.- Balua Bazar, Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The North Bihar Power Distribution Company, Patna 2. Prasant kumar, S/O Sri Birendra Pd Gupta, Vill P.O. P.S.- Natwar, Dist- Rohtas. 3. The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra For the Power Holding : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Shashwat Srivastava, For the State : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha APP Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 13-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the North Bihar Power Distribution Company and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by S.D.J.M. Birpur in G.R. No. 380/2011 (arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 91/2011) by which cognizance was taken U/s 420, 406, 409,467,468,471,120(B) I.P.C. 3. As per the prosecution case, on the instructions of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Birpur and Electrical Executive Engineer, Supaul, an inquiry committee was constituted whose Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 2/15 chairman was Sub Inspector Prashant Kumar and members were Raj Kumar Yadav, Accounts Assistant, Birpur, Kedar Nath Jha, Bill Clerk, Birpur and Awadhesh Sharma, Correspondence Clerk, Birpur. Under the chairmanship of the members and the Chairman, the cash book, bank computer summary and bank voucher of Raghopur were compared in which during the investigation by Shri Surya Narayan Sah, s/o Shri Bhola Sah, village Jahlipatti, PO Devipur, Police Station Radhopur, District Supaul, franchisee Simrahi Feeder whose agreement number is 01/10-11 dated 10.09.10, alloy number 1074 dated 01.09.10, it was found that the revenue amount of approximately Rs. 31,39,341.93 collected from the electricity consumers from the month of February 2011 to 10/ August 2011 was not deposited in the account of Bihar State Electricity Board. Government revenue has been embezzled by Surya Narayan Sah. Upon questioning the branch manager of Simrahi State Bank, the Inquiry Committee found that the bank voucher deposited by Surya Narayan Sah did not belong to this bank branch and the seal and signature on the bank voucher were incorrect. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence, merely on the suspicion, he has been made accused during Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 3/15 course of investigation by alleging that the petitioner was posted as Cashier at Birpur Sub Division. The petitioner is working as Assistant Accountant of the Electricity Department and was posted in the Electricity Supply Division, Farbisganj, he was transferred by order dt. 17.02.2011 from Farbisganj to Supaul Division. In pursuance of the order dated 17.02.2011, the petitioner submitted his joining at the Supaul Division, where he was posted in the Electricity Sub Division, Birpur, as per the order dated 08.03.2011, and the petitioner joined on 09.03.2011. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that the franchise was granted to Surya Narayan Sah of Simrahi feeder based on an agreement for a duration of 12 months, from 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011. At the time of this agreement, the petitioner was not posted within the Sub Division of Birpur, but was posted elsewhere from March 2011 to June 2011, while the franchise agreement spanned from 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011. Furthermore, it is important to note that the petitioner was posted at the Birpur Sub Division on 08.03.2011, where he served for approximately 3 months as an Account Assistant till June 2011. Thereafter, under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Department, a transfer order was issued Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 4/15 to the petitioner via memo no. 1580 dated 04.07.2011, transferring him to Rosera, within the district of Samastipur. The petitioner was relieved by the Assistant Electric Engineer, Birpur, to join at Rosera on 11.07.2011, and he submitted his joining there. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that immediately after the issuance of the transfer order on 04.07.2011, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Electricity Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Birpur, requesting the entry of the scroll roll, cash book, and bank account, as per the directions. He explained that he could not complete the work due to his transfer and requested that the bank statement be taken for verification. He further submits that a special audit was conducted by the Electricity Department to investigate the defalcation committed by Surya Narayan Sah, the franchisee of Simrahi feeder, during the period from October 2010 to August 2011. The audit revealed that Surya Narayan Sah had defalcated Rs. 29,34,847/- while depositing a security amount of Rs. 11,65,710/-, leaving a recoverable amount of Rs. 2,59,052/- from Surya Narayan Sah. It is further submitted that during the course of the investigation, it was alleged that Surya Narayan Sah had defalcated a total of Rs. 31,39,341.93, whereas Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 5/15 the audit report found only Rs. 29,34,817/- as the defalcated amount. It was also stated that Cashier Anjani Kumar Mishra (the petitioner) had the duty to collect the summary from the bank computer each month and compare it with the cash book, but he failed to do so. Therefore, it was concluded that the petitioner had not discharged his duties, even though he was posted for a short period of only about 3 months, from 9th March 2011 to July 2011. After his transfer, he filed an application before the Electricity Engineer on 11.07.2011 regarding the accountancy and verification of the bank statement. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the investigation, no evidence was found to suggest that the petitioner had conspired with Surya Narayan Sah to defalcate money. Rather, it was found that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duty as a cashier by not verifying the bank statement each month. However, no statement from the co- accused, Surya Narayan Sah, implicated the petitioner in any defalcation. Moreover, the petitioner deposited the amount as alleged in the audit report. He further submits that the petitioner had no role in the verification of the bank statement. This responsibility lay with the Assistant Electricity Engineer, Shri Prashant Kumar, who was duty-bound to verify the accounts Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 6/15 every month. However, this verification was not carried out. The petitioner was posted for a very short tenure of about four months. Therefore, although he was alleged to have failed in his duties, there was no mention of any recovery of the alleged amount from the petitioner when his Last Pay Certificate (LPC) was issued after his transfer from Birpur (Dist-Supaul) to Rosera (Dist-Samastipur) in July 2011. He further submits that the defalcated amount has already been recovered from the accused, Surya Narayan Sah, as confirmed by the audit report dated April 2012. The petitioner submitted his joining in the Birpur Sub Division on 11.03.2011, and after joining, he was not directed to verify the bank account statement of Surya Narayan Sah. The responsibility for verification of the account lay with Assistant Engineer Prashant Kumar (Informant), who failed to perform the verification on time. The defalcated amount was later recovered from Surya Narayan Sah, as confirmed by the audit. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated vide Resolution No. 810 dated 08.09.2016 against the petitioner and the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges levelled against him and an order was passed vide Resolution No. 274 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 7/15 dated 25.02.2019 to pay him full salary of his suspension period with effect from 28.12.2011 to 25.12.2016 in accordance with rule. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made against the petitioner as alleged. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr, (2020) 9 SCC 636. 10. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the North Bihar Power Distribution Company and the learned counsel for the State have opposed the application of the petitioner by submitting the case as alleged is make out against the petitioner and the Court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioner. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (Supra) 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. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 8/15 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 9/15 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.” 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 10/15 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 11/15 an 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 12/15 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 proceedings 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 13/15 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.” 12. I have heard and considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is evident that the petitioner was posted for a short period and had no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. The petitioner had no role in the verification of the bank statement, which was the responsibility of the Assistant Engineer. Furthermore, the defalcated amount has already been recovered from the accused, Surya Narayan Sah, as confirmed by the audit report. It is an admitted position that in the departmental Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 14/15 proceeding, the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges levelled against him and an order was passed vide Resolution No. 274 dated 25.02.2019 to pay him full salary of his suspension period with effect from 28.12.2011 to 25.12.2016 in accordance with rule. The relevant portion of the aforesaid resolution reads as under:- tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us Jh feJk ds fo#) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh lkjh çfØ;k iw.kZ dj i=kad 428 fnukad 13-05-2018 }kjk tk¡p çfrosnu lefiZr fd;kA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh us Jh feJk ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks vçekf.kr ik;k gSA tk¡p inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr tk¡p çfronsu ,oa vU; lqlaxr dkxtkrksa dh lE;d leh{kk dh xbZ- leh{kksijkar tk¡p inkf/kdkjh ds eUrO; ls lger gksrs gq, l{ke çkf/kdkj }kjk Jh feJk ds fo#) ladYi la[;k 810 fnukad 08-09-2016 }kjk lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vf/kjksfir vkjksiks ls eqä djrs gq, fuyacu vof/k fnukad 28-12-2011 fnukad 25-12-2016 dk fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ osru dk Hkqxrku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA rnuqlkj Jh feJk ds fo:) ladYi la[;k 810 fnukad 08-09-2016 }kjk lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vf/kjksfir vkjksiks ls eqä djrs gq, fuyacu vof/k fnukad 28-12-2011 ls fnukad 25-12-2016 dk fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ osru Hkqxrku djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA 13. From the afore-quoted, it is clear that the disciplinary proceeding which was on the very same fact as the present criminal prosecution has been decided on merits and the petitioner has been exonerated and even the salary for the suspension period is decided to be paid to him. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52827 of 2015(4) dt.13-01-2026 15/15 14. In light of the above, there is no sufficient material or evidence to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (Supra), the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by S.D.J.M. Birpur in G.R. No. 380/2011 (arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 91/2011) is hereby quashed. 15. The application stands allowed. 16. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T