BALU RAM SAINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand having a. rded sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988') and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of the petitioner, holding the post of Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary with Panchayati Raj department, for offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120B of Indian Penal Code by his order dated 30.04.2007 (Annex.5); and the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rajsamand having put the petitioner under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 by his order dated 18.05.2007 (Annex.6), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking to question the aforesaid orders dated 30.04.2007 and 18.05.2007.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he remained posted as Gram Sevak with Gram Panchayat, Majera, Panchayat Samiti, Kumbhalgarh District Rajsamand from 04.08.1998 to 31.03.2000; that during implementation of special schemes of rural developments, various work were got conducted in accordance with Basic Schedule of Rates ('BSR'); that the allegations upon the petitioner of causing loss to the public funds by making excess payments, creating forged records, making payments in the name of fictitious firms, and of embezzlement are all baseless as the technical sanction as well as actual payments were beyond his domain; that the fault, if any, lay essentially with the Block Development Officer; that though the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a case bearing No. 545/2000 for the aforesaid offences but the petitioner's name was not included therein and the same was included only after investigation; that no notice was issued to the petitioner on such investigation but the petitioner yet submitted his own reply on the allegations of escalated costs as levelled on the basis of rates as prescribed in the BSR of 1997 though the said BSR was amended on 01.09.1998 and the amended BSR was required to be taken into consideration while making valuation; that even though there was a valid reason of valuation made by the petitioner, he was unnecessarily framed in the matter with prejudice at the instance of the local politicians; and the Chief Executive Officer without considering the factual position has proceeded to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and thereby the Block Development Officer has put the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) It has been strenuously contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has explained by making a systematic statement about the valuation with reference to the rates applicable from 01.09.1998 that has not been taken into consideration by the authorities; that the basic responsibility in the Panchayat level work was that of Sarpanch and for Panchayat Samiti level work the responsibility was that of the Block Development Officer and in any case, the responsibility could not have been upon the petitioner who was a pigmy official conducting his duties at the instance of higher officers or Sarpanch of the Panchayat, and his role was merely of assisting as a small time employee. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Dr. R.C.Anand, 2004 CrLJ 3121 , Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 1997 8 Supreme 178, Janeshwar Das Aggarwal v. State of U.P.,1981 CrLR (SC) 303, Guru Bipin Singh v. Chongtham Manihar Singh, 1997 CrLJ 724 , Mithan Lal v. The State,1968 RLW 54 and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,1979 CrLR(SC) 242.