LAWS(ORI)-2022-4-54

SUDARSAN SAHANI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On April 18, 2022
Sudarsan Sahani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the appeals arise out of one case, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, those were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the First information report (Ext.28) lodged by P.K. Dwivedy (P.W.12), Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur, in short, is that pursuant to receipt of reliable information of misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs.1,50,000.00 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) by showing false execution of pothole repair work in N.H. 217 from 147 K.M. to 171 K.M. in September 2004, an enquiry was taken up, in course of which it was ascertained that during the period from 2002 to 2004, the appellant Sudarsan Sahani was the S.D.O. of N.H. Sub-division, Balliguda, appellant Saroj Kumar Misra was the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Berhampur and appellant Prasanta Kumar Patra was the Junior Engineer of N.H. Sec. , Balliguda. During the said period, an estimate was made relating to the periodical renewal of N.H. 217 and the same was sanctioned and agreement was executed on 19/2/2004 with contractor Sri Arun Kumar Choudhury relating to PR Coat of N.H. 217 from 148 K.M. to 154 K.M. for an amount of Rs.36,98,199.00with the date of commencement and completion from 19/2/2004 to 18/6/2004 and further extension of time was given upto 30/1/2005. The enquiry further revealed that while the said agreement was subsisting, another agreement was executed for the same portion of work with co-accused Abakash Padhy (respondent no.4 of GCRLA No. 25 of 2019) overlapping the earlier agreement with an estimate of Rs.4,64,881.00 with the date of commencement and completion from 10/9/2004 to 9/3/2005. After execution of agreement with co-accused Abakash Padhy, the appellant Prasanta Kumar Patra made necessary entries relating to pothole repair work in the measurement book and an amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 was paid to co-accused Abakash Padhy on 14/10/2004. It further came to light that pothole repair works from 147 K.M. to 171 K.M. was not actually executed and false bills were prepared and payment of Rs.1,50,000.00 was shown. The Superintending Engineer, N.H. Circle (South), Bhubaneswar conducted an inspection and came to the conclusion that the agreement drawn by the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Berhampur was unauthorized as PR agreement over the same patch was already in force and it was further found that inflated rates were given in the sanction and estimate agreement with an intention to give undue financial benefit to the agency executing pothole repair work and that the measurement books were not produced before him for his scrutiny and it was reported to be missing. Considering the inspection report, the payment of Rs.1,50,000.00 made to the contractor Abakash Padhy was treated as unauthorized, unwanted and loss to the Government.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellants who are the public servants is that the PR agreement with contractor Arun Kumar Choudhury was a conditional one which was not completed till the departure of Executive Engineer and the said contractor Arun Kumar Choudhury had also not applied for extension of time for which the 1st contract came into end on 31/8/2004 and was not in force when the 2nd contract with the respondent Abakash Padhy was executed. It is further pleaded by the appellants that the Executive Engineer executed the 2nd agreement for repair of potholes from 148 K.M. to 171 K.M. which includes the work of 6 K.M. of the 1st agreement and that MB No.1311 was submitted by the appellant Prasanta Kumar Patra relating to the work executed by respondent Abakash Padhy and the same was submitted by J.E. S. Acharya to the Divisional Office. The defence plea of respondent Abakash Padhy is that he had rightly executed the work as per agreement and has been falsely implicated. The payment of running bill of Rs.1.50 lakh was made with bonafide and final bill having not been paid, there was no loss to the Government. The 1st contractor Arun Kumar Choudhury started the work on the verbal instruction on the day of joining of P.W.9 without extension and it is only on 24/3/2005 that post-facto extension was granted after the final bill was paid.