Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1369 (PAT)

Santan Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-09-25

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Santan Singh, resident of Village-Pateya, Thana-Madanpur, District-Aurangabad in public interest. 2. It appears that the petitioner is employed by the State of Jharkhand as Block Statistical Supervisor. Since his transfer from District-Chatra to East Singhbhum District, the petitioner has not reported to duty or is absent from duty. The petitioner being a resident of Village-Pateya, District-Aurangabad, he has approached this Court complaining about the malpractices committed by the concerned officers in commissioning of the schemes approved under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the funds received for the purpose of the schemes have been misappropriated and pilfered away by the officers concerned and the schemes have not been implemented as per the reports. The petitioner has sought an independent enquiry in respect of the above referred schemes. 3. The Petition has been heard by us on several occasions. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the State Government He has filed counter affidavit and has produced before us the reports of enquiries made by the vigilance committee. Mr. Lalit Kishore has submitted that in view of several complaints made in respect of the schemes approved under the Act, Panchayat level vigilance committees are constituted to oversee the commissioning of the schemes approved under the Act. As the local committees are not found to be effective or adequate, the officers from the State Government are also deputed on such committees. In view of the complaint made in the present writ Petition, the State Government has constituted an enquiry committee and enquiry has been made in respect of each scheme/project commissioned in the concerned Block. He has further submitted that none of the local officers was on such enquiry committee. In the submission of Mr. Lalit Kishore, the schemes are spread over past ten years. Most of the schemes were for earth-filling work, the commissioning of such schemes cannot be examined with accuracy after several years. Nevertheless, the vigilance committee constituted by the State Government has made all efforts to enquire about the work completed. Wherever the works were not completed, the recoveries are sought to be made. Some recovery has already been made. Prosecution has been lodged against certain persons who were found to be on the wrong side. 4. Nevertheless, the vigilance committee constituted by the State Government has made all efforts to enquire about the work completed. Wherever the works were not completed, the recoveries are sought to be made. Some recovery has already been made. Prosecution has been lodged against certain persons who were found to be on the wrong side. 4. Thus, it appears that the State Government has put its machinery in motion to make the enquiry to prosecute the wrongdoers and to recover the amount of incomplete projects/ schemes. 5. The petitioner has disputed every word said on the affidavit. According to him, the so-called enquiry made by the State Government or the enquiry committee constituted by the State Government is an eyewash and true facts have not been brought before this Court. He is insistent that the State Government should not feel shy about the independent enquiry. 6. On perusal of the voluminous record before us and the disputed facts brought before us, we do not suppose that the matter can be stretched further or sorted out here. We have to rely on the good faith of the State Government and its machinery for implementing the welfare projects commissioned by the State Government/Central Government with devotion and sense of commitment. 7. However, there is no doubt that in implementation of the schemes approved under the Act, the irregularities are committed the public fund is being misappropriated, the purpose of the Act is being grossly defeated. 8. In view of the limited scope of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution and of its own limitations, the High Court or a Court of law would not be in a position to make thorough enquiry or to regulate or monitor such enquiry. 9. In our view, the purpose would be best served if the State Government constitutes a high level, wide ranging Committee/Cell including the personnel from the executive, the police, accounts, technical experts, social workers, etc. to receive complaints in respect of the implementation and commissioning of the schemes and projects approved under the Act. Such Committee/Cell shall, on receipt of the complaints and on satisfaction of the veracity of the complaints, get the complaints enquired into and undertake the corrective measures. 10. to receive complaints in respect of the implementation and commissioning of the schemes and projects approved under the Act. Such Committee/Cell shall, on receipt of the complaints and on satisfaction of the veracity of the complaints, get the complaints enquired into and undertake the corrective measures. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this writ Petition with a direction to the State Government to complete the enquiry initiated by it in the present set of complaints and to undertake corrective measures. The State Government will also constitute a Committee/Cell as aforesaid to receive the complaints in respect of the schemes/projects approved under the Act, to investigate and to take corrective measures. Such a Committee/Cell shall be constituted within six months from today. 11. We do trust that the State Government and its officials will take these matters seriously and plug the loopholes in implementation of the schemes/projects approved under the Act with sense of commitment and devotion. 12. Copy of this order will be served upon the Principal Chief Secretary, State of Bihar. 13. Copy will be furnished to the writ petitioner and to the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore.