BINDU BHUSHAN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition had been filed by the petitioner alleging misuse of public money, misappropriation and embezzlement of crores of rupees in the Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of the State, where unauthorized persons in collusion with the respondent-authorities had availed the facility of use of the Government Helicopter- Dhruv, which entailed huge expenditure and thereby misused public money at large and hence, the petitioner prayed that an independent agency or the Vigilance Department or the Central Bureau of Investigation be entrusted with the enquiry to check the misuse of huge public money.

(2.) A show cause notice was issued to the respondents including the State of Jharkhand and the State of Jharkhand on several occasions sought to justify that the Helicopter has not been misused and most of the trips undertaken by the Helicopter-Dhruv was at the instance of the dignitaries who were eligible in their official capacity to undertake the journey. The response of the State, prima facie, was not acceptable. But as it entailed question of facts in regard to the expenditure incurred, this Court thought it appropriate to seek the assistance of the Accountant General and hence, the petitioner was directed to implead the Accountant General, who could assist this Court in regard to the alleged illegal use of Helicopter. After impleadment of the Accountant General, a report was submitted and as per the report of the Accountant General, a sum of Rs.29,02,57,472/- (Rs. Twentynine crores two lacs fiftyseven thousand four hundred and seventytwo only) had been spent on the total variable cost of the flights and a sum of Rs.36,10,08,000/- (Rs. Thirtysix crores ten lacs and eight thousand only) had been spent towards purchase of the Helicopter-Dhruv. In addition, the establishment cost of Rs.19,66,69,046/-(Rs. Nineteen crores sixtysix lacs sixtynine thousand and fortysix only) had also been segregated out of the total cost of the flights. Thus, the report, prima facie, certified the averment of the petitioner to the effect that out of the total 946 flights which had been undertaken by the Helicopter, only 310 flights, prima facie, were authorized and rest of the flights were unauthorized, on which huge expenditure running into several crores of rupees had been incurred. This Court, therefore, directed the respondent State to file an affidavit indicating as to what is the response of the State in regard to the unauthorized expenditure on the flights and whether it would be a fit case for handing over the matter to the C.B.I for investigation.

(3.) The respondent State thereafter filed a reply in response to the aforesaid query and stated that there is a well laid down procedure of internal audit for the expenditure incurred by the Department of Civil Aviation of the State and there is a mechanism for internal audit by the Department itself and if any irregularity is found in the expenditure of the Department, the audit report initially is sent to the office concerned for verification/comments and after scrutiny and comments of the concerned office, the Accountant General, on satisfaction, submits the final report to the Controller & Auditor General of India and thereafter the report of the Controller & Auditor General of India is placed on the floor of the Legislative Assembly through the Public Accounts Committee. Thus, in substance, it was stated by the State of Jharkhand that in case, there is any misuse of the Government owned Helicopter incurring huge expenditure, the same can be dealt with as per the established procedure of law. It was further contended that it would not be appropriate to straightway hand over the matter to the C.B.I for investigation.