Authorised Vigilance investigation and pension rules do not bar criminal prosecution in illegal mining cases.

Orissa HC held that cognizance for illegal mining offences was not vitiated where a government notification expressly empowered Vigilance officers to investigate, take legal action and file complaints or charge sheets, and that authorisation was consistent with the mining law framework. It further ruled that pension rules regulating withholding, withdrawal or recovery of pensionary benefits do not bar criminal prosecution or override criminal procedure, so retirement gave no immunity. The Court also found that prosecution could continue against the accused on allegations of forged renewal and illegal mining because criminal liability depended on personal acts, not mere status as a legal heir. The revisions were therefore dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance for offences under the mining law and allied rules was vitiated for want of a complaint by a competent or authorised authority, and whether Vigilance officers were empowered to investigate and file the complaint. (ii) Whether the proceedings were barred against retired officials under the pension rules. (iii) Whether the prosecution could continue against the sole heir accused on the allegation of forged renewal and illegal mining.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance for offences under the mining law and allied rules was vitiated for want of a complaint by a competent or authorised authority, and whether Vigilance officers were empowered to investigate and file the complaint.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the mining law required a complaint by an authorised person, and the relevant state rules also referred to a competent authority. However, the Government notification specifically empowered Vigilance officers to investigate, take legal action, and file charge sheets or complaints in relation to illegal mining offences. That authorisation was not shown to be inconsistent with the statutory framework. The Court also distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioners, since those cases involved police action without comparable authorisation for mining offences.

Conclusion: The complaint and investigation by Vigilance were held maintainable, and the challenge to cognizance failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were barred against retired officials under the pension rules.

Analysis: The pension rule relied upon was held to operate only in the limited field of withholding or withdrawing pension and recovery from pensionary benefits. It does not create a prohibition against criminal prosecution or override the criminal procedure law. The Court therefore rejected the attempt to treat retirement as an immunity from criminal process.

Conclusion: The plea of bar under the pension rules was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution could continue against the sole heir accused on the allegation of forged renewal and illegal mining.

Analysis: The allegation against the accused was personal, including procurement of renewal by relying on a forged will and benefit from the alleged illegal mining. Other legal heirs had no attributed role in the alleged acts. Mere status as a legal heir would not attract criminal liability without acts constituting the offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the accused was held maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were found to lack merit as the statutory objection to cognizance failed, the pension-based objection did not bar prosecution, and the challenge to individual liability was unsustainable; the criminal revisions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government has expressly authorised Vigilance officers to investigate and prosecute illegal mining offences, a complaint and cognizance taken on that basis are maintainable; pension rules governing post-retirement benefits do not bar criminal prosecution for alleged offences committed during service.

---