STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

                     [2014] 8 S.C.R. 255


                 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                              A
                               v.
              ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No.1615 of 2013)
                        JULY 9, 2014
                                                                    B
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
              V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)

     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 13(1 )(d) and 13(2)
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 477A, 201,         c
109 and 1208 - FIR - Legality of - Complaints lodged against
Respondent no.1-IAS officer while he was posted in the cadre
of Unified Bihar - Inquiry instituted against him by Vigilance
Department, Government of Bihar - Unified State of Bihar
bifurcated into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand       o
through the Reorganisation Act - Respondent no. 1 allotted!
transferred to Jharkhand Cadre - FIR subsequently lodged
against him by Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government
of Bihar at Patna - Challenged before High Court - With
reference to provisions of the Reorganisation Act, the High         E
Court held that the FIR instituted by State of Bihar, much after
the appointed day for bifurcation of the State of Bihar into the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand was not
maintainable and quashed the FIR - Held: High Court erred
in referring to the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and        F
circulars issued by the Central Government for holding the
FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar - The FIR was
based on inquiry initiated by Vigilance Department of the
State of Bihar prior to re-organisation of the States - However,
in view of circular dated 20th December, 2000 and by letter
dated 1Oth July, 2001 rlw s. 76 of the Reorganisation Act, such     G
inquiry should have been transferred to Vigilance Department
of the State of Jharkhand while the Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate
                              255                                   H
    256     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   against Respondent no. 1 - Respondent no. 1 had challenged
    inquiry by Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar by.
    filing a writ petition, and thereafter also filed a contempt
    petition, which was disposed of by the High Court with a pre-
    emptory order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months - But
s   since inquiry against Respondent no. 1 was not completed
    within stipulated time. as directed by the High Court, the
    proceedings stood quashed on ground of non-compliance of
    Court's order - FIR lodged· against Respondent no.1, being
    based on vigilance inquiry which stood quashed, was not
c   maintainable - Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 - ss. 76 and
    89.
      The 1st respondent was an IAS officer for the cadre
  of unified Bihar and posted as the Managing Director of
  the Bihar State Financial Corporation ("BSFC").
D Complaints were received against the 1st respondent
  and some others alleging that they floated NGOs and
  received illegal gratification and also were involved in
  tampering of records. The Vigilance Department,
  Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry. The 1st
E respondent at that stage filed a writ petition in the Patna ·
  High Court challenging the inquiry. The same was
  disposed of with certain observations. The observation
  made by the High Court having not complied with, a
  contempt petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the
F Patna High Court. It was disposed of with a pre-emptory
  order to dispose of the inquiry within 8 months, subject
  to grant of extension.

      Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated
  into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand
G through the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The 1st
  respondent 1/'Yl&'iillottedltransferred to Jharkhand Cadre.
  In absence of any progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the
  1st respondent filed writ petition before the High Court
  of Jharkhand at Ranchi.The High Court of Jharkhand
H
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 257


refused to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the       A
writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the 1st
respondent against the order was also dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand.

     On the basis of a detailed inquiry, the Vigilance        8
Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance case dated 20th
August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/477(A)/
201/109/120B l.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against the 1st respondent. The FIR was lodged by             C
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at
Patna. The 1st respondent challenged the FIR dated 20th
August, 2002 by filing a writ petition before the Patna
High Court. With reference to the provisions of Bihar
Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Patna High Court held that
the FIR instituted on 20th August, 2002 by State of Bihar,    D
much after the appointed day for bifurcation of the State
of Bihar into the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand
was not maintainable and quashed the FIR, and therefore
the present appeal."
                                                              E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD:1.1. Admittedly, the first respondent had not
challenged the vigilance inquiry in the writ petition in
question before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
                                                              F
What was challenged was the FIR lodged against the 1st
respondent as Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 dated
20th August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/467/471/
477(A)/201/109/120B 1.P.C. and under Section 13(1(d) read
with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
qua the 1st respondent. [Para 21) [268-A-B]                   G

    1.2. The 1st respondent challenged the vigilance
inquiry in the earlier writ petition bearing Cr. W.J.C.
No.7680/1997 in the Patna High Court. That was
disposed of on 25th November, 1997. There was no              H
     258     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A occasion for the 1st respondent to challenge the said
  vigilance inquiry by filing another writ petition. [Para 22]
  [268-C]

          2.1. Part VIII of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000
     relates to "provisions a_s to the services". Under Section
8
     76, the Central Government has been empowered to give
     such directions to the State Government of Bihar and
     State Government of Jharkhand as may appear to it to be
     necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the
C    provisions of Part VIII and the State Governments are
     made bound to comply with such directions. By the
     clarifications issued from time to time, State Government
     on whose cadre the i;tccused officers were posted after
     bifurcation was directed to institute disciplinary
     proceedings against such officers. By letter dated 10th
D    July, 2001 it was clarified by the Central Government that
     the State of Jharkhand would be the competent authority
     to complete pending vigilance inquires against officers
     who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as clarified
     in this Department's Office Memorandum dated 20th
E:   December, 2000. [Para 23] [268-D-G]

       2.2. From the circulars issued from time to time it is
  clear that the circulars related to the Departmental Inquiry
  and Vigilance Inquiry and none of the circulars relate to
F lodging of FIR against an officer of either State at one or
  other place. Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act relates
  to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after
  reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein
  has nothing to do with pending proceedings, therefore,
G in the matter of challenge to an FIR (quashing of FIR),
  neither provisions of Section 76 or Section 89 of the
  Reorganisation Act nor circulars issued by the Central
  Government, as noticed by the High Court are applicable.
  For the said reason, the High Court was wrong in
   referring to the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and
H
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 259


circulars issued by the Central Government for holding         A
the FIR to be not maintainable in the State of Bihar. [Para
24] [268-G-H; 269-A-C]

    3. The allegations are related to the period 12th May,
1994 to 1st June, 1996 when the 1st respondent was             B
posted at Patna, Bihar as Managing Director of the BSFC,
therefore, on behalf of the appellant it was rightly
submitted that since the alleged commission of offences
by the 1st respondent has taken place in State of Bihar
while he was serving the State, it will have jurisdiction to   C
proceed against the 1st respondent and to lodge FIR at
Patna. [Para 25] [269-C-D] .

     4.1. However, in view of the circular dated 20th
December, 2000 and by letter dated 10th July, 2001 read
with Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act, vigilance           D
inquiry which was initiated against the 1st respondent by
the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar prior to
reorganisation of the State i.e. 15th November, 2000,
should have been transferred to the Vigilance Departme.nt
of the State of Jharkhand, as the 1st respondent was           E
allocated cadre of Jharkhand and was posted under the
Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, it is rightly
contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that in view
of the fact that he has been allocated to the IAS cadre of
the Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the       F
date on which Jharkhand State came into existence, the
Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar ceases to
have a jurisdiction to investigate against the 1st
respondent. [Para 28] [270-C-E]
    4.2. The 1st respondent had challenged the inquiry         G
before the Patna High Court by filing a writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No.7680 of 1997. The said case was
disposed of with certain observations. Having not
complied with, a contempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.1498
                                                               H
    260      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A of 1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna High
  Court. It was also disposed of on 29th November, 1999
  with a pre-emptory order to dispose of the inquiry within
  8 months, subject to grant of extension. However,
  admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent
B was not completed within 8 months as directed by the
  High Court. Having not completed the inquiry within the
  stipulated time, as per order of the High Court, the said
  proceedings stood quashed on the ground of non-
  compliance of Court's order. [Paras 29, 30) [270-F-G; 272-
C A-BJ
      4.3. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st
  respondent based on the Vigilance Inquiry which stood
  quashed. Therefore, it is held that FIR itself based on
  Vigilance Inquiry made by State of Bihar was not
D maintainable. [Para 31) [272-C]
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No.1615 of 2013
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2007 of the
E High Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. W.J.C. No. 352 of
  2002.
      S.K. Bagaria, ASG, Sandeep Singh, Sushma Manchanda,
  Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar for the
F Appellants.
        Sunil Kumar, Armendra Sharan, Rohini.Prasad, Anil
    Kumar Jha, Shreekant N. Terdal, C.D.Singh, Sakshi Kakkar for
    the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
      SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. : 1. This
  appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and others' ·
  against the judgment dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the High
  Court Judicature at Patna in Cr.W.J.C. No.352 of 2002. By the
H impugned judgment the High Court giving reference to the
· STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 261
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
provisions of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 held that the A
impugned FIR instituted on 20th August, 2002 by State of Bihar, .
much after the appointed day is not maintainable and quashed
the FIR.

    2. The factual matrix of)he case is as follows:
                                                                    B
     The 1st respondent - Ashok Kumar Singh belongs to Indian .
Administrative Service. He was an officer for the cadre of unified
Bihar and was posted as the Managing   . Director of the Bihar
                                        '

State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BSFC")
(between 12th May, 1994 and 19 June, 1998). On 1st June,            c
1996 complaints were received against the 1st re~ondent and
some others alleging that as the Managing Director of the
BSFC he and ten other persons including six public servants
floated two NGOs and received illegal gratification by forcing
the BSFC beneficiaries/loanees to deposit money in the NGOs D
in return of financial favours shown to them by waving off
outstanding loan recoveries. They were also alleged of
tampering with records. The Vigilance Department,
Government of Bihar instituted an inquiry.
                                                                    E
    . 3. The 1st respondent at that stage filed a writ petition
bearing CWJC No.7680 of 1997 in the Patna High Court
challenging the inquiry. The same was disposed of with certain
observations. The observation made by the High Court having
not complied with, a contempt petition bearing M.J.C.No.1498/
1998 was filed by the 1st respondent in the Patna Higli Court.      F
It ·was disposed of with a peremptory order to dispose of the
inquiry within 8 months, subject to grant of extension.

     4. Meanwhile, the unified State of Bihar was bifurcated into
the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand through the Bihar     G
Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Reorganisation Act"). 15th November, 2000 was fixed to be
the appointed day for such bifurcation. The 1st respondent was
allotted/transferred to Jharkhand Cadre. In absence of any
progress in the Vigilance inquiry, the 1st respondent filed writ    H
   262       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A petition bearing CWJC No.1573/2001 before the High Court
  of Jharkhand at Ranchi. He sought an order to restrain the State
  of Bihar from proceeding with the inquiry against him and from
  taking any coercive action against him .. He also sought to
  quash the notice dated 7th April, 2001 issued by the Deputy
B Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (Investigation) asking him
  to appear on 24th April, 2001 in the inquiry.

        5. The High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 20th April,
  2001 refused to interfere with the inquiry and dismissed the writ
  petition. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the 1st respondent
C against the order dated 20th April, 2001 was also dismissed
  by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand by order
  dated 27th September, 2001.

       6. Meanwhile, on the basis of a detailed inquiry, the
D Vigilance Investigation Bureau instituted Vigilance P.S. Case
  No.7/2002 dated 20th August, 2002 under Section 420/465/
  466/467/471/477(A)/201/109/120B l.P.C. and under Section
  13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988 against the 1st respondent and ten other accused
E persons including six public servants. The FIR was lodged by
  the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar at
  Patna.

       7. The 1st respondent challenged the aforesaid FIR dated'
  20th August, 2002 by filing a writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. ·
F No.352 of 2002 before the Patna High Court with a prayer to
  quash the FIR. Further prayer was made to direct the Vigttance
  Department, Government of Bihar not to investigate or to
  proceed against him. The Vigilance Department filed its
  counter affidavit thereto.
G
       8. Later, another Vigilance P.S. Case No.05/2003 dated
  31st March, 2003 under Section 420/467/468/471/109/120(B)
  l.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also registered against
H the 1st respondent and four other officers of the BFSC for giving
 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 263
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
financial favours to M/s. Luxman Wire Industries, Digha Ghat,         A
Patna.

     9. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge
of the Patna High Court and by the impugned judgment and
order dated 7th May, 2007 the learned Single Judge quashed
                                                                      B
the FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 dared 20th
August, 2002 lodged against the 1st respondent and restrained
the petitioner-State of Bihar from proceeding with the case.

       10. Before the High Court on behalf of the 1st respondent,
it was contended that in view of the fact that he has been allotted   C
to the IAS Cadre of the Jharkhand State on 15th November,
2000, i.e. the date on which the Jharkhand State came into
existence, the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar
ceased to have jurisdiction to investigate the case against him
 Under law the investigation of any vigilance case against him        o
will stood vested in the State of Jharkhand after its creation on
15th November, 2000. In that view of the matter, it was
contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that the lodging of
the FIR against him by Vigilance Investigation Bureau of the
State of Bihar is completely without jurisdiction and, therefore,     E
it is liable to be quashed.

        11. On behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar it was
. submitted that since the alleged commission of offences by the
  1st respondent had taken place within the State of Bihar while
  the 1st respondent was still serving State of Bihar it will have    F
 jurisdiction to proceed against him and to lodge FIR. It had been
  submitted that the subsequent allotment of cadre of the 1st
  respondent to the State of Jharkhand will not make any
  difference in as much as the offences as alleged have been
 oomm~b                                                               G

      him while he was serving in the State of Bihar. On thi
, ground it had been argued that there was no merit in the
 submission of the 1st respondent.
                                                                      H
    264       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A        12. Learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Bihar
    Reorganisation Act which came into fo_rce with effect from 15th
    November, 2000. Referring to provisions of the Reorganisation
    Act and circulars issued by the Central Government the learned
    Single Judge held that in the present case it is Section 76 of
8   the Reorganisation Act and not Section 89 of the
    Reorganisation Act which is applicable and in that case the
    Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction
    to inquire into the matter or to lodge FIR.

      13. Before this Court the parties have taken similar pleas
C as was taken before the High Court.               ,

         14. On perusal of records and on careful consideration of
    the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of
    the view that P.S. Case No.7 of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002
o   against the 1st respondent was maintainable and learned
    Judge of the High Court was wrong in holding that the said FIR
    lodged at Patna, Bihar was not maintainable.

        15. So far as the provisions of Section 76 and Section 89
   of the Reorganisation Act and the circulars issued by the
E Central Government, wh'lch were relied upon by the learned
 · Judge of the High Court is concerned, we are of the opinion
   that they are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
   the present case. For coming to such finding it is desirable to
   discuss the relevant provisions of the Reorganisation Act and
F Circulars issued by Central Government from time to time.

        16. Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act deals with power
    of Central Government to give directions to the State
    Government which reads as follows:
G
          "Section 76. Power of Central Government to give
          directions.- The Central Government may give such
          directions to the State Government of Bihar and the State
          Government of Jharkhand as may appear to it to be
          necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing
H
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 265
    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    provisions of this Part and the State Government shall           A
                                    11
    comply with such directions.

       17. In exercise of power conferred under Section 76 the
Central Government issued a direction dated 28th March, 2002
in which it was provided that if .any vigilance inquiry or           8
investigation is pending against any Officer of All India Services
it will be completed by the authorities of the State to which he
has been allotted. In the aforesaid circular dated 28th March,
2002 a reference has been made to Memorandum No.13013/
8/2000-AIS(I) which is an office memorandum issued by the
Government of India under the subject:- Personnel related            C
issues incident to bifurcation of States. Paragraph 2 of the said
memorandum reads as follows:
     11
      2{a]:- The original service records as well as the CR
     dossiers of officers of the All India Services should be in     D
     the custody of the concerned State of which the individual
     officer stands ailotted. Hence, the service records and CR
     dossiers of officers allotted to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh
     and Uttaranchal should be transferred to these States.
                                                                     E
     [b] The custody and conduct of pending disciplinary
     proceedings/inquiries in respect of /AS officers belonging
     to the new 'residual States is to be regulated by the
     explanation below Rule 7[1][b] of the All India Services
     [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1969 which is as under:-
                                                                     F
     Explanation - For the purposes of clause [b] of sub rule
     [1] where the Government of a State is the authority
     competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against a
     member of the Service, in the event of a reorganization
     after such reorganization of the State. The Government          G
     on whose cadre he is borne after such reorganization
     shall be the authority competent to institute disciplinary
     proceedings and, subject to the provisions of sub-rule [2],
                                                           11
     to impose on him any penalty specified in rule 6.
                                                                     H
      266    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A .  · 18. By another letter No.1 Misc.8038/2001 Karmik 241/
  01 clarification has been made regarding the pending
  proceedings against the AIS Officers pursuant to bifurcation of
  the States. In the said letter a reference has been made to letter
  No.11018/2/2001-AIS[lll] dated 10th July, 2001 in which the
B following clarifications have been given:-

       "[i] The Government of Jharkhand would be the competent
  authority to complete pending vigilance enquiries against
  officers who stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has
C already been clarified in this Department's OM No.13013/8/
  2000-AIS[I] dated 20.12.2000 [Annexure-20]

       [ii] The Government of Jharkhand shall also be the
  competent authority to take a decision regarding initiation of
  disciplinary proceedings or any other action based on the final
D report of any vigilance inquiry which may have been initiated
  by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who now
  stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre."

       19. On behalf of the State of Bihar it was submitted before
E the High Court that the dates of the alleged occurrence were ··
  prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore,
  Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act will make no difference.
  Moreover, it was contended that the alleged places of
  occurrence of the various offences said to have been
F committed by the 1st respondent were within the State of Bihar
  and, therefore, the Vigilance Department of the Government of
  Bihar will not lose the jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st
  respondent. In this connection counsel on behalf of the State
  of Bihar drew attention of the Court to Section 89 of the
  Reorganisation Act which reads as follows:-
G
       "Section 89. Transfer of pending proceedings - [1] Every
       proceeding pending immediately before the appointed
       day before a court [other than the High Court], tribunal,
       authority or officer. in any area which Qn that aay falls
H      within the State of Bihar shall, if it is a proceeding relating ·
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 267
    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    exclusively to the territory, which as from that day is the   A
    territory of Jharkhand State, stand transferred to the
    corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of that
    State.

         xxx     xxx             xxx              xxx"
                                                                   B
    20. Learned Judge having noticed the aforesaid
provisions and circulars issued by the Central Government
observed as follows:

    "As stated above with the creation of State of Jharkhand       c
    the services of the petitioner stood transferred to this State
    with effect from 15.11.2000. It is clear that on this date the
    vigilance inquiry with respect to the Vigilance P.S. Case
    No.7 of 2002 was pending against the petitioner whose
    F.l.R. [Annexure 25] is dated 20.8.2002 filed against the
                                                                    0
    petitioner and others. This shows that till then the
    investigation against the petitioner was pending and the
    F.1.R. in this regard was lodged on 20.08.2002 much after
    the creation of the State of Jharkhand. The important
    question that will arise in this connection would be whether E
    any investigation by the State of Bihar would have been
    carried out against an officer of IAS cadre whose services
    were transferred/allotted to the State of Jharkhand with
    effect from 15.11.2000 culminating in lodging of the F.l.R.
    [Annexure - 25] on 20.08.2007 ? Form what has been
    noticed above it is clear that the law does not permit the · F
    Cabinet [Vigilance Department] Government of Bihar to
    lodge the F.l.R. against the 12etitioner on 20.08.2002 when
    he was already allotted to the State of Jharkhand with
    effect from 15.11.2000 and was born on the l.A.S. cadre
    of the State. Obviously the answer to this question would G
    be in negative. From this it would1 appear that the F.l.R.
    lodged against the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No.7
    of 2002 [Annexure -25] was completely without jurisdiction
     in view of the letters and the different orders issued in this
     regard as noticed above."                                      H   -
                                                                     '
    -268     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R. --


A         21. Admittedly, the first respondent had not challenged the
    vigilance inquiry in the writ petition in question before the High
    Court of Judicature at Patna. What was challenged was the FIR
    lodged against the 1st respondent as Vigilance P.S. Case No.7
    of 2002 dated 20th August, 2002 under Section 420/465/466/
    467/471/477(A)/201/109/1208 1.P.C. and under Section
8
    13(1(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
    1988 qua the 1st respondent.

       22. The 1st respondent challenged the vigilance inquiry in
  the earlier writ petition bearing Cr. W,J.C. No.7680/1997 in the
C Patna High Court. That was disposed of on 25th November,
  1997. There was no occasion for the· 1st respondent to
  challenge the said vigilance inquiry by filing another writ petition.

       23. Part VIII of the Reorganisation Act relates to "provisions
o as to the services". Under Section 76 the Central Government
  has been empowered to give such directions to the State
  Government of Bihar and State Government of Jharkhand as
  may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect
  to the provisions of Part VIII and the State Governments are
E made bound to comply with such directions. By the clarifications
  issued from time to time, as referred to above, State
  Government on whose cadre the accused officers were posted
  after bifurcation was directed to institute disciplinary
  proceedings against such officers. By letter dated 10th July,
F 2001 it was clarified by the Central Government that the State
  of Jharkhand would be the competent authority to complete
  pending vigilance inquires against officers who stand allocated
  to the Jharkhand cadre as has already been clarified in this
  Department's Office Memorandum dated 20th December,
  2000.
G
       24. From the aforesaid circulars issued from time to time
  it is clear that the circulars aforesaid related to the
  Departmenta! Inquiry and Vigilance Inquiry and none of the
  circulars relate to lodging of FIR against an officer of either.
H State at one or other place. Section 89 of the Reorganisation
 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 269
     [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

Act relates to pending proceedings. Lodging of FIR after             A
reorganization of the States (15th November, 2000) herein has
nothing to do with pending proceedings, therefore, in the matter
of challenge to an FIR (quashing of FIR), neither provisions of
Section 76 or Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act nor
circulars issued by the Central Government, as noticed by the        B
High Court and discussed above are applicable. For the said
reason we hold that the High Court was wrong in referring to
the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and circulars issued
by the Central Government for holding the FIR to be not
maintainable in the State of Bihar.                                  c
      25. The allegations are related to the period 12th May,
1994 to 1st June, 1996 when the 1st respondent was posted
at Patna, Bihar as Managing Director of the BSFC, therefore,
on behalf of the appellant it was rightly submitted that since the
alleged commission of offences by the 1st respondent has             D
taken place in State of Bihar while he was serving the State, it
will have jurisdiction to proceed against the 1st respondent and
to lodge FIR at Patna.

     26. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent also raised the      E
question of legality of the FIR, in view of the order passed by
the Patna High Court and Jharkhand High Court from time to
time.

     27. Under Section 76, the Central Government is
                                                                     F
empowered to give such directions to the State Government
of Bihar and State Government Jharkhand, for the purpose of
giving effect to the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act,
the State Government is bound to comply with such directions.
By letter No.1 Misc. 8038/2001 Karmik 241/01 issued by the
Central Government clarification has been made regarding the         G
pending proceedings against the AIS officers pursuant to
bifurcation of States. In the said letter a reference has been
made to letter No.11018/2/2001-AIS[lll] dated 10th July, 2001
in which it was clarified by the Central Government that the
Government of Jharkhand would be the competent authority to          H
    270      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R..


A complete pending vigilance inquiries against the officers who
  stand allocated to the Jharkhand cadre as has already clarified
  by the Central Government OM N0.13013/8/2000-AIS[I] dated
  20th December, 2000. The Government of Jharkhand shall also
  be the competent authority to take a decision regatding
B initiation of disciplinary proceedings or any other action based
  on the final report for any vigilance inquiry which may have been
  initiated by the Government of Bihar in respect of an officer who
  now stands allocated to Jharkhand cadre.

C    . 28. In view of the aforesaid circular dated 20th December,
  2000 and by letter dated 10th July, 2001 read with Section 76
  of the Reorganisation Act, vigilance inquiry which was initiated
  against the 1st respondent by the Vigilance Department of the
  State of ·Bihar prior to reorganisation of the State i.e. 15th
  November, 2000, should have been transferred to the·
D Vigilance Department of the State of Jharkhand, as the 1st
  respondent was allocated cadre of Jharkhand and was posted
  under the Governmentof Jharkhand. Therefore, it is rightly
  contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that in view of the
  fact that he has been allocated to the IAS cadre of the
E Jharkhand State since 15th November, 2000, i.e., the date on
  which Jharkhand State came into existence, the Vigilance
  Department, Government ofBihar ceases to have a jurisdiction
              .
  to investigate against the 1st respondent.

F      29. The 1st respondent had challenged the inquiry before
  the Patna High Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.
  No.7680 of 1997. The said case was disposed of with certain
  observations. Having not complied with, a contempt petition
  bearing M.J.C.No.1498 of 1998 was filed by the 1st respondent
G in the Patna.High Court. It was also disposed of on 29th
  November, 1999 with a peremptory order to dispose of the
  inquiry within 8 months, subject to grant of extension. Order
  dated 29th November, 1999 is quoted hereunder:

          "In pursuance of Court's order, Mr. Arvind Prasad,
H         Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms1
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH 271
    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
   Department and Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Vigilance                      A
   Commissioner are present in the Court with relevant file.

   It appears that the Vigilance Department submitted report
   in favour of petitioner wherein the Chief Secretary
   ordered to obtain opinion from the Vigilance                     8
   Commissioner; petitioner and thereafter from Law
   Department. After receiving the opinion of the Vigilance
   Commissioner; reply of petitioner, the matter was
   forwarded to the Law Department, which recommended
   to remand the matter to the Vigilance Department for
   further inquiry on certain facts. In view of such remand,        C
   the Vigilance Department is holding further inquiry in
   respect of a/legations as. were made against the
   petitioner.

   The Vigilance Commissioner states that the further               D
   inquiry will be concluded within six months and report will
   be submitted to the Government within the aforesaid
   period.

   On behalf of the State, the Secretary, Personnel and             E
   Administrative Reforms Department states that final
   decision. would be taken by the State by Vigilance
   Department within two months thereof.

   In the facts and circumstances, instead of processing
   against the opposite parties, I allow them further time to       F
   conclude the vigilance inquiry and to pass final order
   thereof within eight months from today, on failure the said pr
   ceeding will stand quashed on the ground of non-complianc
    of the Court's order. ci However, it will be open to the app
   opriate authority to ask for more time, on genuine ground.       G
   The appearance of Mr. Arvind Prasad, Secretary,
   Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and
   Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Vigilance Commissioner are
   dispensed with.
                                                                    H
    272       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A         The M.J. C. application stands disposed of"

       30. Admittedly, vigilance inquiry against the 1st respondent
  was not completed within·8,months as directed by the High
  Court. Having not completed the inquiry within the stipulated
B time, as per order of the High Court, the said proceedings stood
  quashed on the ground of non-compliance of Court's order.

        31. The impugned FIR was lodged against the 1st
  respondent based on the Vigilance Inquiry which stood
  quashed. Therefore, in view of finding recorded above, we hold
C that FIR itself based on Vigilance Inquiry made by State of Bihar
  was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
  inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
  Patna High Court.

D         32. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                             Appeal dismissed.