Committee approval for HSD supplies not shown; absence of prima facie fraud material justified discharge of accused.

Circulars governing HSD supply were construed together, and the Technical Evaluation Committee requirement was held not to extend to regular HSD supplies; the later dissolution of the committee also showed that oil companies were to exercise commercial judgment for the relevant products. On the criminal allegations, the record disclosed no false representation, no material showing knowledge of bogus C-Forms, no sales tax complaint about forged forms, no involvement of sales tax officials, no allegation of illegal gratification, and no material of acting beyond official duty. The materials therefore fell short of a prima facie case for cheating, forgery, conspiracy or corruption, and the discharge orders were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the circulars and communications governing supply of HSD required prior Technical Evaluation Committee approval or Ministry linkage for the supplies in question; (ii) Whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or corruption so as to justify interference with the discharge of the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the circulars and communications governing supply of HSD required prior Technical Evaluation Committee approval or Ministry linkage for the supplies in question.

Analysis: The circulars of the Ministry and the Oil Coordination Committee were read together as governing the supply regime. The 1981 communication was confined to HSD from Koyali Refinery for high value speciality items, while the later circulars of 1988, 1994, 1995 and 1996 dealt with LSHF-HSD, high flash HSD, LDO and crude sludge, and did not extend the Technical Evaluation Committee requirement to regular HSD. The later communication dissolving the Technical Evaluation Committee from 01.04.2002 also showed that the committee's role had lost relevance and that oil companies were left to exercise commercial judgment for the stated products. On this construction, the prosecution theory that regular HSD supplies necessarily required TEC approval was not supported by the governing instructions.

Conclusion: The requirement of TEC approval for regular HSD supplies was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or corruption so as to justify interference with the discharge of the accused.

Analysis: At the stage of charge, the Court could sift the materials only to see whether grave suspicion existed. The record did not show any false representation by the accused, awareness that C-Forms were bogus, any complaint from the sales tax department about forged forms, any participation of sales tax officials as accused, any allegation of illegal gratification, or any material showing that the accused had acted outside the course of official duty. The sanction position also remained absent against the officers concerned. In these circumstances, the materials did not cross the threshold of a prima facie case warranting prosecution on the alleged offences.

Conclusion: No prima facie case for the alleged offences was made out, and the discharge was justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders discharging the accused failed, and the discharge orders were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing circulars do not extend a committee-approval requirement to the commodity in question, and the record discloses only suspicion without prima facie material for cheating, forgery, conspiracy or corruption, discharge at the threshold is justified.

---