Co-Operative Bank Officer Falls Within Ambit Of ‘Public Servant’ U/S 2(C) Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court held that a co-operative bank officer falls within the ambit of a ‘Public Servant’ under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The Lucknow Bench held thus in a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking to quash the FIR lodged under Sections 13 (1) (B) and 13 (2) of the PC Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani observed, “… it is apparent that the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of being a "Public Servant" as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1988. Thus, the said ground is rejected. … So far as the ground taken by the learned Senior Advocate of the petitioner having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings with the result that the criminal proceedings cannot be lodged against him, the said ground is also found to be patently misconceived and rejected.”

The Bench said that the officers of the co-operative society are deemed to be a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and consequently, the Petitioner being admittedly an officer of the co-operative society would thus also fall within the ambit of Public Servant as defined under PC Act.

Senior Advocate Sharad Pathak and Advocate Mayank Pandey appeared for the Petitioner, while AGA Gaurav Mehrotra and Advocate Akbar Ahmad appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

An FIR was lodged against the Petitioner under the provisions of Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the PC Act. It was alleged that although from a valid legal source, the amount earned by the Petitioner was approximately Rs. 2,52,45,522.88/- but he had spent an amount of Rs. 6,30,30,925.52/- during the period, and thus had spent an amount of Rs. 3,77,85,372.64/- in excess.

It was further alleged that the Petitioner failed to submit any satisfactory explanation for the same and in view of the inquiry conducted against him, he was found to be prima facie guilty and his conduct falls within the ambit of the relevant provisions of the PC Act. Raising a challenge to the FIR, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “A perusal of Section 124 of the Act, 1965, however clinches the issue. Section 124 of the Act, 1965 clearly indicates that every officer of a cooperative society shall be deemed to be a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The words "or any officer of a cooperative society" as finds placed in Section 124 of the Act, 1965 have been inserted by the U.P.Act No. 12 of 1990.”

The Court said that the Petitioner was charged of having indulged in corruption and having exploited the employees to accumulate disproportionate assets and of having indulged in other profession like running ITI in Kanpur and Lucknow and for not having given the details of his movable and immovable property to the competent authority.

“The inquiry officer vide report dated 15.10.2018, so far as it pertains to the petitioner having indulged in corruption and having accumulated disproportionate assets, has indicated that in the preliminary inquiry that had been conducted, the inquiry officer had specifically indicated that he is not competent to hold an inquiry in this regard rather it is either the income tax department or some agency which is competent”, it added.

The Court observed that so far as the complaints pertaining to having exploited the employees, no proof was found and thus, it is apparent that no finding has been given by the inquiry officer pertaining to the disproportionate assets for which the Petitioner had been charged in the charge sheet.

“The said inquiry report has been accepted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.12.2018. Thus, it is apparent that no inquiry was in fact conducted for the charge of disproportionate assets which was a charge in the charge sheet and thus there is no restraint or bar now in the respondents in lodging the First Information Report under the provisions of the Act, 1988. Accordingly, none of the judgments over which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would have any applicability in the facts of the instant case. Thus, the said ground is also rejected”, it held.

The Court concluded that so far as ground of malice is concerned, suffice it to say that once no inquiry has been conducted with regard to disproportionate assets despite the said charge having been indicated in the charge sheet that had been issued to the Petitioner and no findings were specifically given by the inquiry officer for the reasons recorded in the inquiry report while conducting the said inquiry consequently, it cannot be said that any malice has been occasioned on the part of the Respondents in lodging the FIR and thus the ground that the said FIR has only been lodged in order to deprive the Petitioner from being promoted to the post of General Manager is patently misconceived.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Vigilance Lko. And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:73862-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sharad Pathak, Advocates Mayank Pandey, and Abhijeet Mishra.

Respondents: AGA Gaurav Mehrotra and Advocate Akbar Ahmad.

Click here to read/download the Judgment