Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 698 (JHR)

Arvind Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-04

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the then Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No.85 of 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.68 of 2010) registered under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioner for his discharge from the case was rejected. 3. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.1530 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department wherein it was found that in spite of Junior Engineers of Building Division being available, Assistant Teachers, who were having diploma/degree were deputed to supervise and to construct building of primary schools and other schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro district under the sponsored programme of the Government. They, in course of constructing/supervising of construction work of the building of the schools, indulged themselves in corrupt practices and thereby, they put the Government to heavy loss. 4. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR was lodged wherein it was alleged that in the meeting of Reflection-cum-Planning held at Ranchi, a decision was taken on the pretext of dearth of Junior Engineers to impart training to the teachers having diploma in engineering so that they may be entrusted with the job of construction/supervision of the building of the schools. Pursuant to that decision, an order was passed by Mr. Arun Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro upon which the then District Superintendent of Education-cum-Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro deputed 7 teachers for having training at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Ratu, Ranchi vide its letter dated 05/05/2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner deputed them in different blocks for supervising the work of construction of the building of new primary schools and upgraded schools, vide its letter as contained in memo No. 998 dated 01/12/2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07/02/2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07/02/2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools, the work, which was supposed to be done by the engineer, is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved from the construction work of the school. However, the then Regional Deputy Director, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 17/09/2007 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti with the construction work of the building of the schools situated in Petarbar block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School. 5. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been posted as District Education Officer at Bokaro on 21.06.2007. In spite of that accusation has been made that under his advice Ashok Kumar Bharti took up the matter of the construction of the schools building. However, according to the case of the prosecution Ashok Kumar Bharti started work relating to the construction of building right from the year 2004. 6. Thus, it has been alleged that the teachers, in contravention of the rule of the Government were deputed to do the construction work/supervising the construction work of the building of the schools and they in that course misappropriated huge amount. The matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. 7. The matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. 7. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 227 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discharging the petitioner from the case by taking plea that the petitioner, who, at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2004, had never been posted as District Education Officer rather the petitioner was posted as D.E.O., Bokaro on 21.06.2007 and in that event any case of the prosecution that the petitioner was in connivance with said accused Ashok Bharti appeared to be innocuous as to how the petitioner would be giving advice in the year 2004 to Ashok Kumar Bharti for going for construction of the building of the schools. However, that application for discharge was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2013. Being aggrieved with that, this revision application has been filed. 8. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case itself demolishes the accusation that the petitioner advised Ashok Kumar Bharti for doing the construction of the building of the schools as it was the decision of the Government that the teachers of the schools having Diplomas in Engineering be imparted with the training and only after having training at DIET, Ranchi they were deputed to do work of Junior Engineer under the order of the then Deputy Commissioner and in that event, entire allegation of prosecution gets demolished. However, even if the accusation is accepted to be true that the petitioner had advised Ashok Kumar Bharti for doing construction of the building, it does not constitute any offence itself in absence of any material to show that whatever Mr. Bharti did, he did in connivance with this petitioner and hence, court below should have discharged the petitioner from the case, but the court below did not take into account all these aspects of the matter in right perspective while dealing with the matter relating to discharge and therefore the order dated 20.02.2013 is fit be quashed. 9. As against this, Mr. 9. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is specific case of the prosecution that whatever Ashok Kumar Bharti did, he did under the advice of this petitioner and therefore the petitioner does not deserve to be discharged. 10. Upon hearing counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the prosecution has come with the case that the petitioner did advise Ashok Kumar Bharti for doing construction work of the building of the schools, but it has been brought on record that the petitioner was posted as District Education Officer, Bokaro on 21.06.2007, whereas Ashok Kumar Bharti started work of construction under the order of superior officers right from the year 2004. Moreover, that accusation of advising Ashok Kumar Bharti does not constitute any offence in absence of any other material that there had been connivance in between petitioner and Ashok Kumar Bharti and that the petitioner got benefitted out of the amount misappropriated or in any other manner. 11. Under that circumstances, I am constrained to hold that no sufficient material is there to put the petitioner for trial for the offences under which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and hence, impugned order dated 20.02.2013 is hereby set aside so far the above named petitioner is concerned. 12. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the case. 13. Thus, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.