THAKUR DASS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. No.73/2013, the petitioner seeks the following two fold reliefs viz.:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2004, the petitioner was working as Chief Education Officer, Poonch. The Government in the Education Department took a decision to procure laboratory equipments i.e. microscope to be used in various Government Schools for Class VIII onwards for examining the properties of minerals and the committee was constituted for the said purpose wherein accused No.1-Jatinder Kumar Gupta was the Member Secretary and accused Nos.2& 3- Romeshwar Kumar Sharma and Balbir Singh were the expert members. The said Committee was headed by the Director, School Education. That after the decision was taken by the aforesaid Committee, the Chief Education Officers of respective districts were directed to assess the requirement of procurement of equipments for using the same in various schools in the districts. The petitioner had approved order for placement of 25 microscopes for higher secondary schools in district Poonch. The Director, School Education, Jammu also constituted Committee of Experts wherein personnel of various departments of teaching including Geography were made as members. That on 25.08.2004 a tender notice was issued by the Director School Education Jammu, in which it was specifically mentioned that microscopes were required to be used for departments of Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Geology and Geography. The petitioner got the field reports and as per the requirement of various schools, 25 microscopes were required in District Poonch for which the order was placed. That subsequent to the purchase and supply of equipments in reference to NIT No.01-DSEJ dated 25.08.2004 issued by the Director School Education Jammu, an FIR No.10/2005 came to be registered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu on the allegation that substandard laboratory equipments including microscopes for examining the properties of minerals at exorbitant rates were purchased. That investigation was conducted by the Vigilance Organization and on completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, in which allegation against the petitioner was that he had placed the order for procurement of said equipments without requirement of the same in the schools concerned thereby putting to loss the Government exchequer. That while doing the investigation no reliance was placed to the requirement of the subject of Geography and it was projected as if the microscopes were required for only Geology subject whereas the matter of the fact was that microscopes were required for the subject of Geography as well for study of materials. That all the microscopes were dispatched to the schools concerned and were put to use and there was no question of any loss having been caused to any person as placement of the order was as per the rates approved by the State Level Purchase Committee, in which the petitioner has no role to play. The petitioner has absolutely no role to play in the selection and evaluation of the approved samples of microscopes as the said job was done by the Expert Committee in which the petitioner was even the member in his capacity as Chief Education Officer. That neither the Government nor the Purchase Committee had taken a decision on the number of microscopes to be purchased and it was left to the expertise of the Chief Education Officer concerned to indicate number of microscopes to be procured. The petitioner after taking stock of the situation and looking to the requirement of the microscopes in the subject of geography for mineral examination, the order was placed for 25 microscopes.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid case before learned trial Court, the Government in the General Administration Department also took up the matter with the Commissioner of Vigilance, J &K, Srinagar vide letter dated 12.06.2007 and requested him to furnish his comments on the enquiry report of the Education Department. The relevant extract on which the comments were sought from the Commissioner of Vigilance is reproduced as under:-