Cuttack, July 13: For Kumar Raghavendra Singh, criminal proceeding in a disproportionate assets case has turned out to be virtually an unending ordeal.

More than 15 years ago, vigilance officers conducted raids on the residential and official premises of the 1982 batch Orissa cadre Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer. A criminal case was registered against him ten days later under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But chargesheet in the case was filed only six months ago. There had since been little or no trial.

“Inordinate delay of 15 years by the state in bringing him to trial amounts to a denial of the assurance of fair trial which is the first imperative of dispensation of justice,” contends the 55-year-old IFS officer in a petition filed before the Orissa High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against him in the Special Vigilance Court.

Singh, presently working as chief conservator of forest (training and development), has alleged that the vigilance authorities had obtained from the Central government the sanction for prosecution against him on December 29, 2010 “by suppressing relevant materials”.

The case was registered by the Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, on January 8, 1996. The chargesheet was submitted on December 31, 2010 without allegedly taking into consideration the materials furnished by him to the vigilance authorities. “Had those materials been taken into consideration, no case could have been made out against him,” the IFS officer contends.

He further claims that the ministry of environment and forests acting on his representation “has recalled the order of sanction for prosecution on February 25, 2011 and has requested the state government to reexamine the case thoroughly”.

Though the ministry of environment and forests had requested the state government “to intimate the final position within one month”, no decision had been taken, alleged the petition filed last week. Sources in the vigilance directorate said Singh’s 15 years’ ordeal is not an isolated case. There are cases pending trial for over 19 years too.

The state vigilance is practically facing a no -win situation over the trial of vigilance cases vis-à-vis their mounting number. On an average, chargesheets were being filed in nearly 200 cases in a year, but the annual disposal by the vigilance courts on an average had been less than a hundred cases.