PUSHPA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) ON the basis of preliminary inquiry, F.I.R. was lodged wherein it was alleged that in the meeting of Reflection -cum -Planning held at Ranchi, a decision was taken on the pretext of dearth of Junior Engineers to impart training to the teachers having diploma in engineering so that they may be entrusted with the job of construction/supervision of the building of the schools. Pursuant to that decision, an order was passed by Mr. Aran Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro upon which the then District Superintendent of Education -cum -Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro, deputed 7 teachers for having training at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Ratu, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 05/05/2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner deputed them in different blocks for supervising the work of construction of the building of new primary schools and upgraded schools, vide its letter as contained in memo. No. 998 dated 1.12.2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 7.2.2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools, the work, which was supposed to be done by the engineer, is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved from the construction work of the school. However, the then Regional Deputy Director, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 17.9.2007 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti with the construction work of the building of the schools situated in Petarbar block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School.

(3.) IT has been alleged that the petitioner was the person who introduced Ashok Kumar Bharti on account of which an account was opened in the bank in which account Ashok Kumar Bharti deposited the amount which he had received as an advanced for construction of the building. Subsequently he without doing the work worth the amount which he had taken as advance withdrew the money and thereby it is said that the petitioner, in collusion with Ashok Kumar Bharti and other persons, committed offence of forgery, misappropriation as well as criminal breach of trust.