SATTAPPA VENKATRAO VARDHAMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE admitting the matter, the learned Judges were pleased to issue notice and ad-interim relief was granted on that very date i. e. 26th September, 1994. Apparently, there is no response to the notice. Finally, on 24th October 1994 rule came to be issued which was made returnable eight weeks and ad-interim relief was confirmed.2.Effect of the relief was that the investigation with regard to the alleged offence of misappropriation, as per complaint Exhibit-B, page 15 was stayed. The complaint was with regard to the irregularity in carrying out Public Works Departmental work in form of a road between Birnal and Chandrahal in Solapur District. The allegation was that of the 3.5 Km. of the road actual work done was for the length of 2.570 Km. only. However, according to the complaint, the accused-petitioner had certified completion of entire length of road i. e.3.5. Km.3.As per the aforesaid calculation there would be shortfall of 0. 930km. of length of the road. The monetary value of which works out to Rs. 1,11,854/ -. This amount was thus said to have been misappropriated.

(2.) HOWEVER, in the departmental proceedings arising out of very irregularities, for want of evidence, the petitioner was exonerated. This can be seen from pages 33 and 34 which is the end part of the enquiry report, Exhibit "a-3", page 29 onwards.5.Absence of relevant material, particularly the original measurement book, as referred to in Exhibit "a-1", page 27 also, another departmental communication where one Executive Engineer is calling upon other Executive Engineer to make available the aforesaid original measurement book.6.In this background of the matter when for want of material the departmental proceedings ended in exonerating the petitioner, obviously, hardly any purpose would be served by making him to undergo the trial.7.Moreover, as can be seen that the incident is of the year 1992, the complaint came to be lodged in the year 1994 only, obviously, because of late grant of sanction. This also would weigh with the Court as per the Judgment of this Court given in Criminal Writ Petition No.353/93, copy of which is produced at Exhibit- A, page 10 onwards. On both counts petition deserves to succeed.8.In the result, petition is allowed. Complaint is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed. .