BHAGWATIPRASAD CHHOTELAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the State government dated 9th January 1973 by which he has been reverted from the post of Professor Class I to the post of Assistant Professor Class II. In 1967-6% the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director of Public Instructions. School matting of the value of about Rupees sixteen lacs was purchased by the Education Department through the Director Public Instructions, in that year from m/s. Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad. There were many irregularities in the purchase of school matting. The State Government framed a number of charges against M. H. Rao, Secretary, Education Department, B. L. Vijayvargiya, deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Smt. F. Choudhary, Director of Public instructions, B. L. Goyal, Divisional Superintendent of Education, Bhopal, and the petitioner The inquiry against these officers was entrusted to Shri v. R. Newaskar, a retired Judge of the High Court, who was authorised to hold a joint inquiry on the charges against these officers. Later on, the inquiry against m. H. Rao and B. L. Vijayvargiya was separated as Rao happened to be an i. A. S. Officer and was governed by different rules. In the joint inquiry against smt. F. Choudhary, B. L. Goyal and the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that certain charges were proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Government. After issuing the requisite show cause notice and after obtaining the advice of the Public Service Commission, the Government passed the impugned order reverting the petitioner.

(2.) TO understand the nature of the charges and the controversy in this petition, it is necessary to state certain facts. Out of the expected saving in the budget for the financial year 1967-68 the State Government sanctioned a sum of Rupees twenty lacs for the purchase of school matting, black-boards, buckets etc. Out of this amount, Rs. 3. 2 lacs were allotted to Tribal Welfare Department and Rs. 16. 80 lacs to the Education Department. The proposal for the sanction of this amount was made towards the end of the year 1967, but the actual sanction by the Government was made on 13th February 1968 This sanction was slightly revised on 6th March 1968. The purchase was directed to be made in accordance with the Store Purchase Rules. It appears that the bulk of the amount sanctioned was to be utilised for the purchase of school matting. In anticipation of the sanction of the Government, a Central Purchase Committee was constituted for making purchases. This committee consisted of three members, viz. the Education Secretary or his nominee, the Finance Secretary or his nominee, and the Director of Public Instructions. A tender notice dated 1st February 1968 was issued as directed by the D. P. I. inviting tenders for 61/2 lac meters of school matting. These tenders were opened and scrutinized on 16th February 1968. The Purchase Committee approved the sample and rate (Rs. 1. 35 per meter) of M/s. Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad and their tender was accepted. Further, on the suggestion of the D. P. I. the following decision was also taken :

(3.) THE Enquiry Officer found that the tender notice was only for 61/2 lac meters of school matting and this entire quantity was covered by the first order, and that the second order for supply of five lac meters of matting was placed without inviting fresh tenders. It was also found that the decision taken in the committee's meeting of 16th February 1968 was merely to avoid delay in transportation of the goods and to authorise an officer to go to the place where the goods were kept by the suppliers for despatch so that they may be verified then and there and taken possession of by him and despatched before 31st march 1968. It was further found that Goyal was sent not in accordance with that direction to take charge or possession of the goods, but merely to ascertain the stock position of the school matting ready for delivery and scrutinize the goods meant for delivery towards the contract. It was also held that goyal did not take possession or charge of the goods and that he did not make any careful or bona fide scrutiny of the goods either as regards its quality or quantity. It was further held that M/s Rajkishan Gupta was a fictitious firm and the real suppliers were D. P. Agrawal and Brothers who submitted the tender, obtained orders and received payments in the assumed name of m/s Rajkishan Gupta.