Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 539 (ORI)

B. C. Tripathy v. State of Odisha

2019-08-22

D.DASH

body2019
JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. The petitioners, by filing this revision, have questioned the legality and propriety of an order dated 13.08.2018 as at Annexure-22 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R Case No. 2 of 2013. By the said order, the learned court below has rejected the petition under section 227 read with section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.') filed by these petitioners for their discharge in the case running for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the P.C. Act") and section 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'the IPC). 2. It is pertinent, at this stage, to mention that earlier these petitioners had approached this Court in CRLREV No. 326 of 2018 questioning an order dated 5.4.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 2 of 2013 rejecting their application for discharge. By order dated 26.6.2018, this Court with the observation that said order is without any such reference and discussion of the materials on record as to the existence of prima facie case for the offences against the petitioners to frame charge; while setting aside the order had remanded the matter to the court below for fresh consideration of the petition and its disposal in accordance with law. The followings were the observations in the relevant paragraph of the order of the court below impugned therein:- "xx xx xx xx 'I have carefully gone through the entire case record. The background of prosecution case is almost admitted. The dispute arose over purchase of plastic moulded chairs as per the World Bank norm for which the Government of Orissa appointed ELMARC as the project consultant. The project Director of Orissa Health System Development Project invited tenders through ELMARC by national competitive bidding for supply of moulded chairs and as it appears from the record the evaluation committee which comprise of present petitioners recorded for purchase of moulded chairs from SG merchants causing huge loss of Rs. 15,22,125/- ignoring the bid submitted by VIP Industries. On scrutiny of the entire record, I find prima facie material against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. In the premises, this Court is not inclined to discharge the petitioners/accused persons. The petition is thus, rejected. Call on 30.04.2018 for consideration of charge. 15,22,125/- ignoring the bid submitted by VIP Industries. On scrutiny of the entire record, I find prima facie material against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. In the premises, this Court is not inclined to discharge the petitioners/accused persons. The petition is thus, rejected. Call on 30.04.2018 for consideration of charge. Accused persons to remain physically present on the date fixed. This Court, at the end, had said:- Xx xx xx xx 9. From the above observation, it does not appear that what material has been actually gone through by the concerned court. By mere, observing that "went through entire record" or quoting allegation of the F.I.R. are not enough but the trial court has to specify the document gone through to form opinion to frame charge for the offences. It is only available from his observation that the prosecution alleged that the petitioners avoided the norms and recommended for the purchase of the moulded chairs from the M/s. S.G. Merchants, Kolkata by causing loss of Rs. 15,22,125/-. 10. The angle of conspiracy may be inferred from the materials, but the court below should specify the document from which it has inferred conspiracy. Since the opinion of the Court as observed above lacks to find out the material basing on which he has formed opinion, the case is required to be reheard by him on the point of charge. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar to rehear the matter on the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. after affording opportunity of being heard to the prosecution and defence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order." 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the case are as under:- The petitioner no. 1 is the Executive Engineer and petitioner no 2 is the Financial Advisor-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of Orissa Health Systems Development Project (OHSDP) and they were the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee as constituted by the Government for evaluating the bid of M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited, Kolkata and three other bidders for the purpose of purchase of the Moulded Plastic Chairs. It is alleged that the petitioners being the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee have shown undue favour to the bidder-M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited, who has been ultimately awarded with the order of supply and it is said that for said acceptance, the State exchequer has suffered loss of Rs. 15,22,125/-. 4. On 1.4.1998, the Government of Odisha framed Project Implementation Plan (PIP) for O.H.S.D.P. for the development of health and infrastructure etc. In the PIP, estimated spending, as indicated, was Rs. 49.25 crores for procurement of 306 items of equipments, instrument and furniture for 156 hospitals. The PIP indicates that M/s. Electronics Maintenance and Repair Corporation (ELMARC), a subsidiary of Odisha State Electronics Development Corporation would be the procurement consultant for equipment; instrument and furniture and would be responsible for assisting Health and Family Welfare Department in carrying out all necessary purchase of the required items in (I) finalizing technical specifications and preparing bid documents; (II) managing tender openings; (III) making technical and commercial evaluation; (IV) placing purchase orders as per the World Bank norms; (V) undertaking pre-despatch inspection; and (VI) supervising during the installation and commissioning by the suppliers at the site. The norms of the World Bank stood prescribed in the procurement guidelines. On 17.5.2004, World Bank gave no objection certificate for purchase of 11275 numbers of Plastic Moulded Chairs at an estimated cost of Rs. 65,52,400/- i.e., at the rate of Rs. 581/- per chair. The proposal was approved by the Government in the Department of Health. Thereafter, ELMARC issued invitation of bids for supply of 11725 numbers of Plastic Moulded Chairs at the cost of Rs. 65,52,400/-, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 581/- per chair as per the decision of OHSDP Authorities. The bid documents contained the technical specification of the Moulded Plastic Chairs to be supplied. It was indicated therein that the manufacturer must have ISO 9001 : 2000 accreditation or Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certified for the product and those certifications or standard performance reports from the Government or Government recognized test houses were to be attached with the bid document. On 11.8.2004, five bids were received and those were opened in presence of the representatives of the bidders as well as the officers of ELMARC. Bid opening statements were prepared and signed by the representatives of the bidders. On 11.8.2004, five bids were received and those were opened in presence of the representatives of the bidders as well as the officers of ELMARC. Bid opening statements were prepared and signed by the representatives of the bidders. The Bid Evaluation Committee then sat over the matter to consider the draft bid evaluation report prepared by the officials of ELMARC and placed before it in respect of 62 items. It gave recommendations in respect of 58 items which included the moulded plastic chairs. The Committee then finding L-1, L-2 and L-3 as non-responsive having not given the test certificates, which was mandatory as indicted in the notice calling for the bids, considered the only responsive bid of M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited, which had quoted the price of plastic chair as Rs. 630/- against the estimated cost of Rs. 581/- as fixed by the World Bank/State Government while giving bid of Neelkamal brand (L-5) and the other one @ Rs. 495/- per chair with certain deviation as to the height (L-4) of Supreme brand. The Bid Evaluation Committee recommended the case of M/s. S.G. Merchant Limited (L-4) for supply of said Moulded Plastic Chairs at the rate of Rs. 495/- per chair with certain deviation in the height without changing the rankings. This is said to have been done in adherence to Clause-24 (3) of the Instruction to Bidders that the purchasers may waive any minor informality, non-conformity or irregularity in a bid which does not constitute a material deviation provided such waiver does not prejudice or affect the relative ranking of any bidder as also in following clause 24(4) of the instruction that deviation from or objections or reservations to the critical provisions such as, those concerning bid security (ITB-Clause-15), applicable law (GCC-Clause-31) and taxes and duties (GCC - Clause-33) would be deemed to be a material deviation. The report given by the Bid Evaluation Committee was accepted by the Project Director, OHSDPC on 8.10.2004. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department in the Government of Orissa on 11.10.2004 recommended the report of the Bid Evaluation Committee to the Government which was approved on 26.10.2004. Pursuant to the above order, agreement between the Project Director, OHSDP and M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited was executed on 16.11.2004. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department in the Government of Orissa on 11.10.2004 recommended the report of the Bid Evaluation Committee to the Government which was approved on 26.10.2004. Pursuant to the above order, agreement between the Project Director, OHSDP and M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited was executed on 16.11.2004. On 29.12.2004, test certificate of the Supreme Brand Chair Model - FLORA was issued by the Inspection Survey and Surveillance India Private Limited before the actual delivery, at the time of pre-delivery inspection by ELMARC. Supply being made, the supplier raised the bills and payment has been made in phases. Finally on 26.9.2006, World Bank issued Implementation Completion and Result Report for the OHSDP. Letter of the World Bank came to the Principal Secretary, Health regarding post-procurement review of contracts carried out in April, 2006 by World Bank Consultant, Mr. M.V. Ramani certifying that the materials were purchased from the lowest responsive bidder after obtaining the approval from the Government in all cases and the work was done as per Clause-10(A) of the Guidelines. The work of the ELMARC was certified. The auditors of Accountant General and the World Bank having audited the accounts payment was finally released. About two years after the closure of the project, on 30.06.2008, the Inspector, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar lodged an FIR alleging that there was a loss of Rs. 23,56,475/- to the State exchequer as the purchase order in so far as the moulded plastic chairs are concerned had not been placed in favour of the L-1 bidder, i.e., M/s. Uma Plastic. Pursuant to that, investigation was carried out. On 26.6.2012, charge-sheet in the case has been submitted placing the petitioners for trial for commission of offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and section 420/120-B of the IPC alleging that they being in criminal conspiracy with M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited for awarding the contract to the firm have shown undue official favour to that firm and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs. 15,22,125/- to the Government exchequer in making pecuniary gain unto themselves. 15,22,125/- to the Government exchequer in making pecuniary gain unto themselves. The allegations in the charge-sheet are three fold which are:- (a) that said M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited (L-4) had not submitted the valid and required test certificate and there was manipulation in that for which the bid document was liable to be rejected, (b) that M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited (L-4) had submitted two bids on the face of the prohibition contained in Clause 13.3 of the Instructions to the Bidders framed by the World Bank, (c) that the moulded plastic chairs offered to the supplied were not as per the required standard. Thus it is said that the supply order placed with M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited was in violation of the World Bank guidelines. In view of all the above, the bid of M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited (L-4) should not have been considered by the Bid Evaluation Committee and the committee should not have sent the said proposal to Government for purchase of moulded plastic chairs from L-4. The Government, which had approved the proposal to purchase the moulded plastic chairs in 2004, then accorded sanction for prosecution of these petitioners. 5. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the role of the Government of Odisha undertaking, i.e., ELMARC, which had been appointed as the procurement consultant with the approval of the World Bank stands clearly defined in the PIP. He submitted that as per the obligation, the ELMARC had called for the bids. Those were opened and the documents being verified ELMARC had prepared the comparative statements and declared as to which are the responsive and non-responsive bidders which came to be placed before the Bid Evaluation Committee for consideration. It was next submitted that in the absence of any such material on record to show that these petitioners as the members of the Committee had prior knowledge about any such foundational or fundamental defects in the bid given by M/s. S.G. Merchants Limited, giving rise to any such suspicion as to any manipulation in the matter, they having not bestowed their attention in further scrutinizing the bid documents in detail cannot to be viewed from an angle that they were parties to the conspiracy. He then submitted that the report of the Bid Evaluation Committee with all the bids and documents being forwarded to the Project Authority and State Government for final decision in the matter, these petitioners, being mere members of the Committee, cannot be clamped with the criminal liability particularly when the Committee has clearly pointed out the defect of the chair in height and has pointed out technical non-responsiveness of L-1 to L-3 bids and the high price of L-5 bid in their report for their onward acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. He submitted that the rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner for their discharge in the case in the second round after remand of the matter for reconsideration is that grave suspicion arises as to the fact that these petitioners are parties to the conspiracy in view of the fact that certain defects in the bid of L-4 had been ignored and the bid being in violation of the procurement guidelines of World Bank has been overlooked. He, however, submitted that the reasons assigned by the court below in saying so are per se not acceptable. In this connection, he having placed the reasons so assigned by the court below submitted that those do not at all point any finger of accusation against these petitioners who were members of the Bid Evaluation Committee and whatever facts were placed by ELMARC in the Draft Evaluation/Comparative Statement, those having been taken note of in good faith, these petitioners have performed their job in a just and fair manner placing the matter before the authority given a clear picture to take the final call. He further submitted that in so far as the allegation relating to submission of two bids by the same bidder is concerned, the same is said to be in violation of clause 13.03 of ITB framed by the World Bank which contained the restriction in that regard. He next submitted that in March, 2003, prior to floating of the tender by ELMARC on 05.07.2004, the World Bank had already revised the Standard Bidding Document and under the revised clause 13.3(d), submission of more than one bid by one person had been permitted subject to of course compliance of certain conditions. He next submitted that in March, 2003, prior to floating of the tender by ELMARC on 05.07.2004, the World Bank had already revised the Standard Bidding Document and under the revised clause 13.3(d), submission of more than one bid by one person had been permitted subject to of course compliance of certain conditions. In view of said revised guidelines, that M/s. S.G. Merchant, which was an agent of two different manufacturers, was competent to submit two separate bids and therefore basing upon the old and obsolete guidelines, when there was no scope for the Bid Evaluation Committee to reject the two bids as non-responsive, the violation as alleged is not at all cognizable. According to him, on the face of the materials collected, even no suspicion comes to surface to presume that these petitioners have committed the offence under section 420/120-B of IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act so as to be proceeded with by framing the charge thereunder. He, therefore, contended that for no justification, these petitioners having been prosecuted, they ought to have been discharged. 6. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted all in favour of the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for discharge. According to him, the order in question is well within the four corners of law holding the field for consideration of framing of charge. It was submitted that in view of the detection of the manipulation in the test report submitted with the bid of L-4, the court below having entertained strong suspicion against these petitioners who were the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee, no such fault can be found with the order. He further submitted that when placement of two bids by one bidder in terms of the specific clauses in ITB framed by the World Bank was prohibited which makes the bids non-responsive, the trial court has rightly presumed the acceptance recommendation by the Bid Evaluation Committee to be with an intention to cause loss to the exchequer for the pecuniary gain of the petitioners as members of the said committee in conspiracy with the bidder at the cost of the State exchequer. 7. 7. On the above rival submission, this Court is called upon to see as to whether the order in question on the face of it, bears token of careful consideration and appears to be in accordance with law. The conclusion so arrived if are based on no evidence, ignoring material evidence or that the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. And even unconcerned with proof, if strong suspicion arises that the petitioners have the complicity in committing the offence which if put to trial could prove them guilty. 8. These two petitioners have been arraigned in the case being the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee. The ELMARC, a Government of Odisha undertaking was the procurement consultant as approved by the World Bank as clearly defined in the PIP. Bids being called for, opened and the bid documents being verified, ELMARC prepared the comparative statements indicating all the bidders except L-5 to be non-responsive and L-5 as to have quoted high price. It had been said that in so far as L-4 is concerned, the same is non-responsive for the less height of the moulded chairs as quoted to be supplied. Those statements came to be placed before the Bid Evaluation Committee for consideration. The Committee then pointed out the defect in the height of the chairs as stated by M/s. S.G. Merchant-(L-4) as well as the technical non-responsiveness of L-1 to L-3 bids and the high price quoted by L-5. It is said that the test certificate submitted by M/s. S.G. Merchant -(L-4) was dated 01.08.2001 which had been submitted with the bid dated 11.08.2004. It has been detected during investigation that though at the foot of the report, it had been indicated that test in respect of clause 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 were under progress and test report on that score would be sent later, yet that part although had been erased; still faintly visible. But the Committee overlooking that aspect which would have made the bid of L-4, non-responsive also on that ground, ruled in favour of L-4 simply pointing the lesser height as the deficiency as condonable under the guidelines. This is said to have been purposely overlooked/ignored so as to favour L-4. The fact remains that such defect/deficiency in the bid of L-4 had not been pointed out by ELMARC in the draft evaluation/comparative statement. In the draft statement at serial no. This is said to have been purposely overlooked/ignored so as to favour L-4. The fact remains that such defect/deficiency in the bid of L-4 had not been pointed out by ELMARC in the draft evaluation/comparative statement. In the draft statement at serial no. 20 as to the submission of test report, it had been remarked as 'yes'. Although the non.-responsiveness of that bid had been pointed out on the score that the chairs sought to be supplied as quoted were less in height, yet as to the deficiency or non-submission of test report being complete in all respect had not been indicated. Under the circumstances, had it been the fact that it being so mentioned by ELMARC that the test report is incomplete and still ignored/overlooked/overruled by the Bid Evaluation Committee holding that said test report as complete in all respect and as containing no deficiency, the Committee's discharge of function would have been come under scanner giving rise to grave suspicion and the liability for such action would have been prima facie attracted inferring intention therefrom. But in view of the fact that nothing had been indicated in the draft evaluation/comparative statement placed by the ELMARC before the Committee, no such strong suspicion surfaces that the facts as to the above deficiency/defect in the test report being within the knowledge of the petitioners, who are the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee had been purposely ignored, more particularly when it is not said that such erasing has been done during the period when the Committee was in seisin of the matter which is also clear from the draft evaluation/comparative statement placed by the ELMARC indicating all as to the test report of L-4 to be in order and when no other bidder or from any other quarter, that had been pointed out drawing the notice of the members of the Committee. At best, it may be said that the Committee have not gone for further detail scrutiny of the documents based upon which the draft evaluation A comparative statement prepared by the officials of ELMARC and have gone to bank upon the same. In view of the defined role of ELMARK, having placed reliance upon the draft evaluation/comparative statement as prepared by the ELMARC, the members of the Committee on that score cannot be attributed with the criminal intention. 9. In view of the defined role of ELMARK, having placed reliance upon the draft evaluation/comparative statement as prepared by the ELMARC, the members of the Committee on that score cannot be attributed with the criminal intention. 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the relevant portion of the order passed by the court below, which runs as under:, "Learned Special P.P. Vigilance submitted that the test certificate submitted by M/s. S.G. Merchants Private Limited is in respect of 13 plastic moulded flora chairs of 01.08.2001. It is mentioned on the foot of the report that the test in respect of Clause 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 is under progress and the test report will be sent later. This portion is erased but is faintly visible. The test report is of 01.08.2001 and it was submitted in the bid on 11.08.2004. M/s. S.G. Merchants, Kolkata-1 and M/s. S.G. Merchant, Kolkata-2 are the same bidders for two different manufacturers. As per 13.3 of ITB of the bid documents, supplies for any particular item in each schedule of the bid should be from one manufacturer only. Bid from agents offering supplied for different manufacturers for the same item of the schedule in the bid will be treated as non-responsive. After making M/s. S.G. Merchant, Kolkata-1, non-responsive in SI. No. 24 and 25, the Bid Evaluation Committee have made the firm responsive bidder in SI. No. 26. It is violation of Clause 24.5 of the bid documents. Both the offers of M/s. S.G. Merchant, Kolkata, L-4 and L-5 should have been rejected. The present accused persons along with other members of the Bid Evaluation Committee acted in violation of terms and conditions of the norms fixed for the bid I conspiracy with the accused persons and amounts to criminal misconduct. So, to him, the accused persons, should not be discharged. I have carefully heard the argument of the parties. It is found that the test certificate submitted by M/s. S.G. Merchants, Kolkata-1 is of 01.08.2001 and was submitted in the bid on 11.8.2004. The remark on the foot of the report that test in respect of clause no. 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 are under progress and the test report will be sent later is erased but faintly visible. There is remark in Clause No. 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 of the report. The remark on the foot of the report that test in respect of clause no. 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 are under progress and the test report will be sent later is erased but faintly visible. There is remark in Clause No. 6.2.1 and 6.2.3 of the report. These facts in the report is not discussed in the bid evaluation committee giving rise to strong suspicion against its members of the committee. Secondly, M/s. S.G. Merchant, Kolkata, who is a merchant and not manufacturer has filed two bids which are L-4 and L-5. It is mentioned in Note to clause-13.3 of ITB of the bid documents as follows: "Supplies for any particular item in each schedule of the bid should be from one manufacturer only. Bids from agents offering supplies for different manufacturers for the same item of the schedule in the bid will be treated as non-responsive." With such stipulations in Clause 13.3 of ITB of bid document, such a fact is not discussed and M/s. S.G. Merchant, Kolkata are made L-4 & L-5 and responsive by the bid evaluation committee giving rise to strong suspicion against its member." The first point set out in the order has already been discussed and answered. Coming to the second part that the supplies for any particular item on each schedule of the bid should be made from one manufacturer only and the bids from agents offering supplies of materials of different manufacturer of the same item stands as non-responsive, the objection is based on Clause 13.3 of ITB of the bid document. It is said that said fact was not discussed by the Committee and M/s. S.G Merchants (L-4), who, had also been given other bid (L-5), the Committee ought to have noted that L-4 as non-responsive and submitted its report accordingly. The contention of the petitioners is that said guideline was no more in force when the bids were invited and in the year 2003, that clause had undergone revision. So, it is said that when basing upon the guidelines, as those stood prior to revision, the allegation has been levelled and the prosecution does not come with any response in asserting that no such guidelines had at all been issued in March 2003; the allegation on that score is not to be taken cognizance of, when indisputably, the revised guidelines had marched over the earlier. The guidelines with the revision, as those stood with effect from March, 2003 had been filed in the trial court and also before this Court. The prosecution either in trial court or before this Court has not raised any dispute or objection that said revised guidelines of the year 2003 filed by the petitioners were actually not in force when the tender had been floated nor any doubt as to the genuineness of the document has been so expressed. 10. These guidelines in fact touch upon the subject of 'Procurement of Goods'. The relevant clause 13.3 has been quoted in the charge-sheet read as under:- "13.3. The documentary evidence of the bidder's qualification to perform the contract if its bid is accepted shall establish to the purchaser's satisfaction:- (a) That in the case of a bidder offering to supply goods under the contract which the bidder did not manufacturer or otherwise produce, the bidder has been duly authorized by the goods manufacturer or producer to supply the goods in purchaser's country; (b) That the bidder has the financial, technical and production capability necessary to perform the contract; (c) That in case of a bidder not doing business within the purchaser's country, the bidder is or will be (if awarded the contract) represented by an agent in that country equipped and able to carry out the supplier's maintenance, repair, and spare parts stocking obligations prescribed in the conditions of the contract and/or technical specifications; and (d) That t-he bidder meets the qualification criteria listed in the bid data sheet." The relevant clause of the guidelines after revision in March, 2003 runs as follows:- "if an agent submits bids on behalf of more than one manufacturer, unless each such bid is accompanied by a separate bid form for each bid, and a bid security, when required, for each bid, and authorization from the respective manufacturer, all such bids will be rejected as non-responsive." Admittedly, M/s. S.G. Merchants had submitted two bids (L-4 and L-5) and that had been recorded in the bid opening statement signed by the representatives of all the bidders. The ELMARC, in its comparative statement, had also recorded the data in respect of those two bids submitted with separate bid security and manufacturer's authorization in favour of M/s. S.G. Merchants. The ELMARC has accordingly followed the relevant ITB and acted in tune with the revised guidelines. The ELMARC, in its comparative statement, had also recorded the data in respect of those two bids submitted with separate bid security and manufacturer's authorization in favour of M/s. S.G. Merchants. The ELMARC has accordingly followed the relevant ITB and acted in tune with the revised guidelines. This was thus never before the Bid Evaluation Committee and was never so objected during audit of the World Bank as well as the audit made by the officials of Accountant General. Furthermore, no other bidder has also raised objection on this aspect. So, the allegation on that score as against these petitioners who were the members of the Bid Evaluation Committee as to have flouted or acted in violation of the guidelines then in force in not holding L-4 as non-responsive in view of the other bid, i.e. L-5 does not survive to be taken note of, in the absence of any other allegation that these petitioners being the members of Bid Evaluation Committee, had acted or done anything else which is not in conformity with the guidelines as it stood at the time of floating of the tender. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the view taken by the trial court that there arises strong suspicion on the score that petitioners, in discharging their duty as the members of the Evaluation Committee, have flouted or acted in violation of the guidelines in force in holding L-4 as responsive is grossly erroneous. 11. In the wake of aforesaid, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 2 of 2013 rejecting the application of the petitioners under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge is set aside and they are hereby discharged from the case.