Sheema Ali Khan, J.
1. There are two quashing application on behalf of Dr. Parmanand Prasad. In Criminal Misc. No. 49385 of 2008, Dr. Prasad has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.10.2006 by which the Court below has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 468, 471, 477A, 420, 201, 220B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(ii) read with 13(i)(d)/15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in Criminal Misc. No. 12821 of 2009, a prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2009 by which the Court below has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of Dr. Prasad. Criminal Misc. No. 10853 of 2009 has been filed by Prof. Shashi Bhushan Prasad for quashing the order dated 24.02.2009 by which the application for discharge has been rejected by the Court below. Therefore, the main order under challenge is the order dated 24.02.2009, by which the applications for discharge on behalf of the aforesaid two petitioners have been rejected by the Court below.
2. The facts giving rise to this case, briefly stated, are that on the written report of K. K. Verma, Additional Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bihar, a compliant was instituted on 15.06.1995 on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by Prakash Kumar Sinha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) regarding illegal appointments of teaching and non-teaching staffs in Jamalpur Evening College on the direction of the then Hon'ble the Chief Minister on 19.08.1991. It is alleged that the appointments have been made against the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960 and Bihar University Act, 1976 and also in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in Jamalpur Evening College, a constituent unit of the T. N. Bhagalpur University. Dr. Parmanand Prasad was the ex-officio member of the Adhoc Committee of the College and it has been alleged against him that he was responsible for sending the names of the teachers to the University for their absorption and approval. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was not the member of the Selection Committee. All the executive powers of appointments were vested with the President/the Secretary of the Adhoc Committee as per the Statute and the teaching and non-teaching staffs have been regularized in the meeting of the Adhoc Committee on 04.12.1985. Charge sheet was submitted in this case against Dr. Parmanand Prasad, Prof. Shashi Bhushan Prasad and Rabindra Kumar Mishra and thereafter cognizance was taken and finally the applications of discharge have been rejected.
3. In the mean time, the Shikshak Awam Shikshaketra Karamchari Mahasangh preferred CWJC No. 4021 of 1995 before the Patna High Court which was disposed of by order dated 31.01.1997 directing the University to take a final decision with regard to the genuineness of the services of the teaching staffs working in the Fourth Phase Constituent Colleges. The High Court was also pleased to direct that the status quo shall be maintained till such orders or directions are passed by the University. Being aggrieved by the order passed in CWJC No. 4021 of 1996, the State of Bihar preferred appeal before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 6098 of 1997. On 12.10.2004, the Apex Court was pleased to pass an order appointing a Commission to be headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal (Retd. Judge of Supreme Court) (hereinafter referred to as the Agrawal Committee) to look into the matter regarding the legality of the appointments of teachers of the Fourth Phase Constituent Colleges. The Agrawal Committee has individually examined the matter regarding the legality of the appointments of the teachers of the Fourth Phase of Constituent Colleges including the Jamalpur Evening College. The Agrawal Committee submitted its report before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its judgment passed in SLP No. 6098 of 1997 accepted the report of the Agrawal Committee and rejected all the objections filed against the report of the Agrawal Committee. The aforesaid judgment is reported in 2006 (1) PLJR (SC) 464. The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court is discussed in paragraph 73 of the aforesaid judgment and it was directed that 'the University concerned shall now complete the process of absorption of the Staffs of the affiliated Colleges (teaching and non-teaching) in the manner and to the extent stated above in the judgment within the period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order'. The SLP was dismissed.
4. There is specific allegation that some of the persons appointed do not fulfill the criteria for absorption and as such the petitioners are liable to face a full-fledge trial. These seven persons have been put by the Agrawal Committee in R(ii) Category i.e. the teachers working on the posts after the cut off date i.e. 30.04.1986. They are; (i) Smt. Kiran Verma, Political Science, (ii) Sri Amar Kumar Sinha, Commerce, (iii) Smt. Indu Bala Poddar, Sociology, (iv) Dr. Prabin Kumar Sinha, Sociology, (v) Smt. Kumkum Singh, Home Science, (vi) Smt. Hemlata Mishra, Home Science and (vii) Smt. Zakia Tasneem, Urdu. However, all these teachers were subsequently absorbed by the University and, therefore, the criminal liability cannot be passed on to the petitioners in view of the aforesaid facts. It may be stated here that Shri Amar Kumar Sinha was absorbed on 29.04.2005 by Notification No. 94 of 2005, Smt. Zakia Tasneem was absorbed by Notification No. 15 of 2006, Smt. Kiran Verma was absorbed by Notification No. 92 of 2005, and Dr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Smt. Indu Bala Poddar, Smt. Hemlata Mishra & Smt. Kumkum Singh were absorbed by Notification No. 90 of 2005.
5. The main allegation against the petitioners is that they in conspiracy with others had somehow participated or sent the list of above named appointed persons to the University for their absorption, whereas they do not hold the qualification for being appointed after the cut off dates. These facts have now all being considered by the Agrawal Committee and in the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 6098 of 1997 and thereafter the University in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court has passed orders for their absorption.
6. In the changed circumstances, when all the facts which were the subject matter of the enquiry or investigation have been put to rest by the judgment of the Apex Court, and it would not be proper for this Court to hold that the petitioners should face the trial on the presumption that there is strong suspicion against them and that they in conspiracy with the so called appointed persons or the other members of the Committee were responsible for such appointments.
7. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 13.10.2006 and the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna-cum- Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No. 10 of 1995 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 20 of 1995 are quashed.
8. In the result, all these three applications are allowed.