The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court issued a landmark ruling quashing eight First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the Irrigation Scam registered against several retired officials of the Water Resources Department (WRD). The decision came in response to a series of petitions filed before the court seeking to annul the FIRs lodged against them under sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nagpur at Sadar Police Station. The petitioners included: Sanjay Kholapurkar (58), who worked as ‘Superintending Engineer’. At the time of the FIR, he was posted as Administrator of the Command Area Development Authority, Nagpur, and later served at the Gosikhurd Project. Due to ill-health, he took voluntary retirement in 2013. Sopan Suryavanshi (65), retired from the post of Chief Engineer, Gosikhurd Project, Nagpur. Lalit Ingale (58), who served as Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Canal Division No.III. Devendra Shirke (68), retired as ‘Managing Director’ of Maharashtra Water Conservation Corporation, Aurangabad in 2013. Each petitioner had served in various capacities within the Irrigation Department and contributed to important projects such as the Gosikhurd Project on the Wainganga River.

 

The FIRs originated from an open inquiry initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nagpur, following allegations of irregularities in tender processes related to the Gosikhurd Project. The FIRs alleged that tenders were inflated and did not follow established procedures. The inquiry covered the entire project which resulted in registration of multiple FIRs against different accused based on specific tenders. During the proceedings, the petitioners’ counsels argued that the Department had already conducted a departmental inquiry on the primary charge of irregularities in tendering, exonerating the petitioners. They stressed that the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry (preponderance of probability) differed significantly from that in criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt). Given their exoneration from the primary charge, they contended that pursuing criminal charges would be redundant. The State’s senior counsel opposed the applications and noted that while the petitioners were acquitted on one charge, their punishments in respect of other charges have been upheld up to the Governor.

 

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi concluded that since the petitioners had been cleared in the departmental inquiry on the main charge, continuing criminal prosecution would serve no purpose. The court cited precedents where similar situations led to the quashing of FIRs against government official and stressed that administrative lapses do not necessarily justify criminal charges. The defense referenced case law, including Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs CBI, and underlined the difference in standards of proof between departmental proceedings and criminal trials.

 

They argued that given the findings of the departmental inquiry, the probability of conviction in a criminal trial was minimal. The court observed that since the departmental inquiry had already absolved the petitioners of the main charge using a lower standard of proof, expecting criminal charges to meet the higher standard was unlikely. Additionally, the court noted that the complainant who initiated the inquiry was not an expert in the field, having sought technical guidance from a separate committee appointed by the government. The court reaffirmed that not all administrative lapses warrant criminal action. Finally, the court quashed all FIRs against the petitioners, including those with CR Nos. 82 of 2020, 78 of 2020, 83 of 2020, 328 of 2018, 326 of 2018, 325 of 2018, 327 of 2018, 328 of 2018 at Sadar Police Station. The court also clarified that investigations against any remaining accused could proceed according to the law, but the petitioners were absolved of criminal liability regarding the specified charges. Adv S D Dewani, Sr Adv Anil Mardikar a/b Adv R R Vyas represented the applicants while Sr Adv Anand Jaiswal a/b APP Kalyani Marpakwar represented the State.