Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 690 (JHR)

Kuntesh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-03

P.P.BHATT, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
ORDER This Public Interest Litigation has been filed to direct the respondents-Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand to lodge First Information Report with the Vigilance Bureau in connection with embezzlement of public money in the Simaria Goregama Right Flood Embankment Work. The petitioner has further sought for direction to the CBI to investigate the matter. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : - (i) In the district of Godda, with the approval of Ganga Flood Control Commission, Patna and Central Water Commission, New Delhi, the State Govt., decided to execute the Simaria Goregama Right Flood Embankment Work and in pursuant to tender, the work was awarded to Respondent No. 7 and as per agreement the work had to be started on 20.02.2009 and completed within 18 months from that date. (ii) Thereafter, Respondent No. 7 flouted clause 19 of the condition of contract, by sub-letting the work to another construction company i.e. Respondent No. 8 which is owned by the wife of local M.L.A., Sri Sanjay Yadav and brother-in-law of the MLA Brajesh Kumar, is also one of the directors of the said construction company. (iii) During the execution of the scheme, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Dept., Deoghar inspected the work site and prepared an inspection report dated 10.08.2010 along with letter dated 9.08.2010. Thereafter inspection was carried out on the direction of the department secretary who visited the spot with a flying squad and findings were recorded in his report dated 27.01.2010. Then Assistant Engineer reported to Executive Engineer and also to other senior officers including Deputy Commissioner, Godda for necessary action and Deputy Commissioner, Godda taking cognizance of that very letter directed the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Magagama for immediate action vide his letter no. 381 dated 18.06.2010. The irregularities committed by the Respondents 7 and 8 as pointed in the inspection report was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner Godda vide letter dated 4.05.2011 from the Deputy Development Commissioner. 381 dated 18.06.2010. The irregularities committed by the Respondents 7 and 8 as pointed in the inspection report was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner Godda vide letter dated 4.05.2011 from the Deputy Development Commissioner. (iv) The petitioner herein obtained a copy of the internal department note sheets through the right to information which was sought for by another person wherein the secretary of the department has observed on 27.07.2011 that there is a conspiracy to defraud the Government and has also ordered that an FIR be lodged against Respondent No. 7 with the vigilance bureau but the contractor/petty contractor have good political influence, the State Government as well as others concerned officials never cared to take action against them. 3. Earlier, pursuant to the various orders of the Court, the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand has filed the counter affidavit stating that a team of the Engineers has examined the work with respect to the sanctioned estimate and the committee submitted its enquiry report stating that there are large scale of irregularities committed by the concerned Engineers. It is further stated that the Water Resources Department has examined the enquiry report and put up before the higher State authorities with proposal to take action against the erring officials and the contractor (respondent No.8) responsible for causing loss to the State Government. Subsequently, the respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the matter has been entrusted to Vigilance Bureau. On 04.10.2013, the Deputy Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department has filed a supplementary counter affidavit stating that vide letter no. 1068 dated 09.09.2011, the matter has been entrusted to the Vigilance Bureau and a case being P.E. No. 24 of 2011 was registered and the Vigilance Bureau has examined the matter with the assistance of technical experts. It is further stated that a letter No. 9101 (Anu) dated 10.08.2013 has been received from the Vigilance Department wherein Vigilance Bureau has stated that no irregularity/ embezzlement was found by the Technical Examination Cell, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and no matter or evidence was available in order to substantiate the allegations and the enquiry was closed. 4. It is further stated that a letter No. 9101 (Anu) dated 10.08.2013 has been received from the Vigilance Department wherein Vigilance Bureau has stated that no irregularity/ embezzlement was found by the Technical Examination Cell, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and no matter or evidence was available in order to substantiate the allegations and the enquiry was closed. 4. In our order dated 24th April, 2014, we have directed as under: “4.Having regard to the rejoinder and also the materials filed by the petitioner, we direct the 9th respondent-D.G., State Vigilance, Ranchi to look into the report of the Vigilance Bureau recommending the closure of the P.E. Case No. 24 of 2011. We also direct the 9th respondent to offer opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the material before him. We further direct the 9th respondent to personally examine the matter and file a report.” 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.04.2014, an affidavit has been filed by the Vigilance Bureau stating that in the light of the order dated 24th April, 2014, letter No. 4743 dated 7.5.2014 was issued to the petitioner for furnishing material evidence before 9th Respondent. It is further stated that petitioner has sent a reply on 20.5.2014 stating therein that he is unable to attend the Vigilance Bureau Office at Ranchi due to paucity of time and also for economic and security reasons. Again another letter No. 5548, dated 27.05.2014 was sent by the Vigilance Bureau to the Superintendent of Police, Godda asking him to make security as well as other arrangements for appearance of the petitioner before the Police Officer. It is stated that in spite of aforesaid order petitioner has not appeared before the Police Officer. 6. Again another letter No. 5548, dated 27.05.2014 was sent by the Vigilance Bureau to the Superintendent of Police, Godda asking him to make security as well as other arrangements for appearance of the petitioner before the Police Officer. It is stated that in spite of aforesaid order petitioner has not appeared before the Police Officer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to Letter dated 20.05.2014, written by petitioner, addressed to Police Inspector, Vigilance (Annexure-A series) wherein, petitioner has stated as under : - *blds vykos dguk gS fd esjs }kjk nkf[ky fjTokbZUMj ,oa ewy fjV ,oa layXu lkjs nLrkost ds lq{e v/;;u ls lkjs vkjkksi vkbZuk dh rjg Li"V gS blds vykos ;fn Hkonh; dks vU; izek.k dh vko';drk gS rks blds fy, LFky&tkWap visf{kr gS rkfd QthZ foi= ij fd, x, ?kksVkyk dk inkZQk'k gks ldsA vr% vkxzg gS fd U;k; lEer <ax ls LFky&tkWap ,oa izHkkfor ihfM+r fdlku o xzkeh.k dk O;ku ysus dh d`ik dh tk,A** 6A.The learned counsel for the respondents further drawn our attention to the letter dated 24.06.2014, written by Superintendent of Police, Godda, addressed to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, wherein reference has been made to the letter dated 22.06.2014 written by petitioner. Its contents have been reproduced as under : - *mYys[kuh; gS fd Fkkuk izHkkjh] clarjk; Fkkuk ls izkIr lwpuk ds vkyksd eas Jh dqurs'k dqekj >k fnukad&22-06-2014 dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds vkoklh; dk;kZy; esa ,d fyf[kr vkosnu lefiZr fd;s gSa fd **orZeku esa eSa jkWaph fuxjkuh C;wjks tkus esa vleFkZ gwWaaA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa eq>s fuxjkuh C;wjks esa mifLFkr gksuk vko';d ugha gS] tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk Hkh Li"V dguk gSA** 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Das, has submitted that due to security reasons, the petitioner is not in a position to travel to Ranchi and to make a statement. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties, the petitioner shall send this statement in writing along with the supporting materials, if any, to the 9th respondent by Registered Post within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties, the petitioner shall send this statement in writing along with the supporting materials, if any, to the 9th respondent by Registered Post within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. On receipt of such statement of the petitioner and materials, if any, the 9th respondent shall look into the same and consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision, he is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.