J T ACHARYALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitioners are arrayed as accused persons in crime No. 2 of 1996 for offences under Secs. 120-B, 420, Indian Penal Code and sec. 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They approached the Court of Session atMadras , seeking release on bail and the Court of Session declined to grant the prayer and dismissed the petitions by a common order. They have approached this Court for the same relief. The offences alleged being the same and they are accused in the same crime number, these two petitioners are taken up for consideration together and this common order is passed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that certain irregularities were committed in the implementation of two schemes, viz. , the indira Avas Yojana (I. A. Y.) and Jawahar Yojana alias Jawahar Velaivaippu Thittam (J. V. V. T.) in respect of which certain guidelines have been issued by the government indicating that efforts should be made to utilise the maximum the available local materials, adopting low cost technology. The specific allegation against the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 6608 of 1966 (A2) is that he had recommended the proposal for acceptance by the Government and failed to refer the same to the Finance Department and thereby, violating Rule 10 (1) (a)of the Business Rules. Petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 6818 of 1996 (A3) initiated the proposal ad Director of Rural Development placing orders for steel doors on certain co-operative societies in violation of the norms prescribed in g. O. Ms. No. 708 (Finance B. P. E) Department dated 22. 8. 1994. It is also alleged that such placement of orders resulted in wrongful loss to the State Government and pecuniary advantage to certain individuals. They were arrested on 8. 8. 1996. Now, they are injudicial custody. Petitioner No. 1 herein, J. T. Acharyulu, was the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department and Petitioner no. 2, Sathyamoorthi, was the Director of the same department. Petitioner No. 1, as Secretary to the Department, recommended the proposal for acceptance with undue haste to the Government. While selecting four industrial co-operative societies, both the petitioners failed to verify the infrastructure possessed by those Societies to manufacture the steel doors. Further more, the price of the steel doors have been fixed very high, namely, Rs. 1,685 including 12-5% centage charges. Due to payments of centage charges for the overheads incurred by the Department, the Government suffered to the tune of Rs. 82. 95 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 1,685 per steel door for about 50,000 houses. When the centage has not been provided, this was included in the estimate, is a circumstance to show that A. 2 and A. 3 did not bother to look into the Government orders or the business Rules. The object of the programme was to generate gainful employment for unemployed and continue the benefits to the persons belonging to the poverty group in the rural areas. The beneficiary being the people below the poverty line, preference to be given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. The costs of the scheme is shared by the Centre and State on 80:20 basis. In letter and spirit, the programme essentially meant to create employment with the group construction being one among many activities.

(3.) IT is undoubtedly the duty of the officer to carry out truly and faithfully the orders of the Minister, but at the same time it is also their duty to advise him clearly and firmly whenever the action of the minister is not in accordance with the well-recognised and established principles of administration. Bothing can be more disastrous to a State than that the Heads of administration should, instead of advising the Minister properly, take to humouring them and toeing their line.