PURNANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case no.68 of 2010 (Special Case No.85 of 2010) registered under Sections 403/406/409/120B/467/ 468/471/109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7/13(2)/13(1) (d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits it is the case of the prosecution that a resolution was taken in a meeting of reflectioncumplanning of Sarva Siksha Abhijan, Ranchi to impart training for three days at District Institute of Engineering and Training (DIET) to those teachers who are having diploma/degree of engineering so that they be deputed to monitor and supervise the construction work of the school building in different blocks of the district of Bokaro. Pursuant to that decision, six persons were selected by the petitioner tobe imparted with the training which was communicated to different authorities, vide letter dated 5.5.2004. On completion of the training, those teachers were deputed in different schools to monitor and supervise the work of the construction of the building of the school by the then, Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide its order as contained in memo no.998 dated 1.12.2004. In course of time, when decision was taken by the Minister concerned to do away with this arrangement, the petitioner issued an office order on 15.4.2006 whereby the order by which teachers had been deputed to different school was cancelled. However, when it was realized by the petitioner that huge amount has been advanced to the teachers including Ashok Kumar Bharti, they were allowed to have adjustment of the amount, in order words to work out about the money spent in construction work and themoney left out with them and they were allowed to do that at the instance of the higher authority who was insisting on to get the adjustment of the amount as early as possible. In order to get the said direction implemented, the petitioner again wrote a letter dated 23.12.2006 to R.D.D.E, North Chota Nagpur, Hazaribagh to allow one Ashok Kumar Bharti to have adjustment of the amount and by passing such order, the petitioner did not commit any offence, still the petitioner has been made accused putting allegation that the petitioner in connivance with other persons including the teachers who were deputed to work as junior engineer misappropriated huge amount which allegation, in view of the fact stated above, is wholly misconceived.