Direction for De Novo Consideration of Alleged Misappropriation Prior to Initiating Criminal Proceedings

The petitioners served in various capacities (Computer Operators, Managers, Clerks) at the Primary Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhatgaon

During 2013–14, irregularities regarding paddy procurement and land record manipulation surfaced

Initial inquiries by the Deputy Registrar and Bank officials primarily held Respondent No. 8 (Ramkumar Aditya) liable, leading to his termination in 2017

Despite these findings, Respondent No. 8 filed a complaint with the Lokayukt in 2016 against the petitioners

While this complaint remained pending without a final order for an FIR, Respondent authorities (Nos. 4 and 5) issued orders dated 03.08.2021, 10.02.2021, and 21.11.2022 directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioners, purportedly following Lokayukt directions

The petitioners challenged these orders as premature and unauthorized

1. Whether the impugned orders directing the registration of an FIR against the petitioners were legally sustainable given the lack of specific directions from the Lokayukt and previous inquiry findings exonerating the petitioners.

2. Whether the court should grant protection to the petitioners pending a fresh consideration of the matter by the respondent authorities.

The court applied principles of administrative law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction and the requirement for authorities to act based on actual record rather than presumed directions.

It emphasized the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct administrative authorities to reconsider decisions that appear prima facie arbitrary or premature

The court also highlighted the necessity of ensuring accountability for the misappropriation of public funds, balanced against the due process rights of employees who were previously cleared in departmental inquiries

The petitioners argued that the Deputy Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering an FIR based on non-existent Lokayukt directions, especially when prior inquiries placed liability solely on Respondent No. 8

The court noted the State’s contention that a substantial amount of public funds had been misappropriated and that the matter warranted a thorough investigation

Rather than quashing the proceedings entirely, the Court observed that similar situated persons in WPC No. 3776/2021 had received interim protection

The Court reasoned that a fresh examination was necessary to reconcile the earlier findings (which favored the petitioners) with the current allegations of financial irregularities

By directing a fresh review, the Court aimed to prevent premature criminal action while ensuring that the actual culprits behind the procurement loss are identified

The Court held that the authorities must take an independent decision in accordance with law without being influenced by previous observations

The petitioners were directed to appear before the authorities as required

the Court mandated the respondents to specifically examine the roles of all involved parties to address the misappropriation of public funds