A G PRAYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stating to be a tax-payer and citizen of India has filed this petition claiming the following reliefs :- It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to respondent 1 to remove respondent 2 from the Cabinet, institute an enquiry against, him for the misuse of public funds and powers and further issue a writ of Mandamus to respondent 1 to remove respondent 3 and appoint a suitable senior person, review all promotional cases handled by respondent 2 during his tenure and hold enquiries against the guilty officers. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue such other orders/directions/instructions as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.

(2.) The respondent 1 is the State of M.P., the respondent 2 Cabinet Minister of Public Health and the respondent 3 Engineer-in-chief (E in C) of Public Health Engineering Department (PHE) i.e. Head of that Department. The petitioner's case is that the respondent 2 as the Minister in charge of PHE Department has given out-of turn promotion as E in C to respondent 3 who happened to be his favourite by sending his seniors to looplines although there was complaint of serious nature under process involving excess expenditure of 8 to 10 crores in Narmada Water Supply Project of Indore, with full grazing ground of the department with 25-35 crores worth budget at his disposal. During his regime, all the Chief Engineers promoted (named) including the respondent 3 are all having blemished record, similarly 19 Executive Engineers have been promoted as Superintending Engineers in spite of complaints against them but has not cared to fill up the posts of Executive Engineers. These have all been done with ulterior motives to misuse public funds by inducting inefficient and corrupt officers and by shielding them. Huge purchases were made of substandard material at the cost of public exchequer as per complaint of Shri Shitla Sahai M.L.A. The respondents 2 and 3 have no place for rules in their working, with the result, out of 334 officers in the Department, 174 officers have gone to Court of law for seeking justice. Even low paid employees are also harassed and they went on strike. Nobody has any time to look into their grievances as the respondents 2 and 3 are busy in the summer money harvesting season. Funds are being misused to the detriment of the Department. There is vulgur misuse of power by the respondent 2.

(3.) According to the respondent 3, the petition is misconceived, there is no allegation of violation of any legal or fundamental rights. The petitioner has not shown how he is an aggrieved person. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer under suspension and he has been charge-sheeted for making illegal purchases worth crores of rupees, action was taken on the report of Lok Ayukta and D. E. is pending. Out of frustration, he has indulged in reckless and wild allegations unbecoming of a Government officer. The petitioner has suppressed these facts and has filed the petition saying that he is a tax-payer. The petition has been filed only to malign the respondents 2 and 3. If there has been misuse or misutilisation of public funds, it is by the petitioner himself. The subject about the Council of Ministers and their mutual responsibility is governed by Arts.163 and 164 of the Constitution and they have joint responsibility. They are accountable to the State Legislature. Then there is the institution of Lok-Ayukt to look into all such complaints. So the allegations made cannot be subject matter of judicial scrutiny. The respondent 3 was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1979 when Janta Party was in power. His promotion as E in C was recommended by D. P. C. headed by the Chief Secretary under the M.P. Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980, and approved by the cabinet, after receiving concurrence of the State Public Service Commission. The respondent 3's seniors were not superseded, they were given equally important assignments in equivalent rank. The complaint against respondent No. 3 was withdrawn after being investigated by Chief Technical Examiner (Vigilance). The Indore Water Supply Project was taken up in 1972-73 and completed in 1977-78, when respondent 2 was not a Minister. There were high leval boards constituted to execute the project besides there was a State Adviser. The respondent No. 3 was not the policy making authority nor authority for accepting tenders nor solely responsible for executing the project, he had merely to carry out and supervise the works entrusted to him. The works were duly checked and audited. Some objection was taken in the report of the Auditor and Comptroller General about excess rate of labour payments but the Public Accounts Committee had enquired the matter and found no excess payment, the payments were made at the rates given by other Departments. The Project is a unique monument for India as it is first of its kind in India, praised very highly by the world Bank and other international agencies. All promotions have been made strictly as per rules. Officers implicated have not been made parties. All purchases were made through Director General of Supplies and Disposals and the State Laghu Udyog Nigam. Complaints are being investigated by Lok-Ayukt and action taken as per recommendations. No protection is given to any inefficient or corrupt officer. All public funds are used in public interest for the good of the public in general. There is no misuse or misutilization of funds or powers.