K. H. KAMALADINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The appellant has challenged the order dtd. 27/3/2023 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.195 of 2023. The appellant was aggrieved by the order dtd. 15/2/2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, framing charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sec. 13(1) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') and dismissing the appellant's plea for discharge.

(2.) A complaint dtd. 30/1/2013 was received by the Chief Minister of Goa and Chief Vigilance Officer of Goa, containing allegations pertaining to 19 short tender notices comprising 847 numbers of water supply works in the Works Division XVII (PHE-N), Public Works Department, Porvorim, Goa. It was alleged that the tender notices were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual. It was also alleged that some works were unnecessarily split without any valid justification, and the works were allotted to the same party or their cronies. The Department of Vigilance conducted an enquiry into the complaint and furnished a report dtd. 26/3/2013, which revealed that 19 Short Tender Notices enclosed in the complaint were never published in any newspaper. The works were quoted 4.8% to 14.95% above their estimated cost, and for most works, only two bidders had quoted bids, which clearly indicated that the Government did not get the benefit of competitive bidding and caused a loss to the Government. The report further revealed that the appellant was working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant division of the Public Works Department, Porvorim, from 21/10/2009 till the date of the enquiry report, i.e. 26/3/2013. The report noted that the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the allegations during enquiry, wherein he had submitted that the decision of not advertising the tenders costing up to Rs.10.00Lakhs was approved by the then Public Works Department Minister for the purpose of saving time, and this decision was approved by other stakeholders. During the enquiry, photocopies of each document were collected from the relevant Division, and it was observed that the signature of the Minister of the Public Works Department was obtained in every case, after obtaining approvals from the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department.

(3.) The enquiry report finally concluded that the appellant, after approvals from the aforesaid authorities, inserted in his own handwriting "approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue W/O" just above the signature of the then Public Works Department Minister on each document, so as to project as if it was an instruction from the Minister himself. The enquiry report also addressed the order dtd. 16/4/2007, which granted financial powers to Executive Engineers, Chief Engineers, and Superintendent Engineers for emergent maintenance and repair work costing up to Rupees Ten Lakhs. However, it was alleged that the appellant undertook works such as painting and fixing floor tiles, which could not be categorised as emergent works.