DILIP KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aforesaid writ applications, prayer has been made for quashing the ex parte Enquiry Report, dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-1), prepared and submitted under the joint signatures of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 so far it relates to petitioners with respect to the construction of the road work in 2007 from "Kankhapra to Satpahari" in the District of Deoghar, whereby after more than 8-9 years of execution of the said Road work on mechanical and physical verification of the same, loss amount of Rs. 8,23,728/- has been sought to be saddled on the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Contractor including the petitioners, who was posted as the Junior Engineer and have contributed to the work as such, while posted in R.E.O., Division, Deoghar. Further prayer has been made to declare and hold that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any deficiency/irregularity if any, which has been reported behind the back of the petitioner and further prayer has been made to declare the exercise of so-called verification/spot enquiry of rural roads, executed more than 8 to 9 years back, being wholly without jurisdiction.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6314 of 2016, who was initially appointed on the post of the Junior Engineer in the year 1998, was posted in NREP Division, Gopalganj under Rural Development Department where the petitioner in W.P. (S) 4056 of 2016 was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer of the Road Construction Department, Bihar and in due course after posting at various places in various capacities, they were transferred in R.E.O. Division, Deoghar as Junior Engineer in the year 2006 and as In-charge of Executive Engineer in the year 2007 respectively. While being posted there, certain works of rural roads were carried out under the said division, out of the State Sponsored Scheme including the Road in question, namely, "Kankhapra main road to Satpahari via Pinjra Sihati Road, for which, due tender etc. was floated and the construction of the said road was carried out successfully at the relevant time strictly in terms with the sanctioned estimate and other prescribed stipulations thereunder. Since the road in question fell under the jurisdiction of the petitioner, who was the Junior Engineer, have supervised the work followed by preparation of measurement books etc. strictly in terms with scheduled quality and quantity, which was duly supervised by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineers, besides all the Officers of the NABARD etc. and after due satisfaction, bills were being passed and payments were being released in favour of the Contractors. On the basis of a complaint made to the Government in the year 2009, with respect to construction of road in question, the Secretary, Rural Works Department referred the matter to the Secretary, Ministerial Secretariat and Vigilance, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated-20.02.2009 for vigilance enquiry of roads constructed under the Deoghar Division, in the tenure of In-charge, Executive Engineer, i.e. the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 4056 of 2016. Thereafter, one team was constituted under the then Superintending Engineer, Vigilance namely Sri Sohan Seth to be carried out in supervision of Dy. S.P., Vigilance, Jharia, Kujur, which conducted physical enquiry of the roads including to that of the road in question between 15.04.2009 to 22.04.2009, but, since no adverse was found, no report was submitted, as such, but out of vengeance, the respondents have constituted three different Committees vide letter dated 28.04.2014, which ultimately conducted the impugned physical enquiry and prepared the report dated 02.09.2016, which is impugned in these writ applications.

(3.) In the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, dated 11.05.2017, it has been stated and submitted that vide letter dated 03.05.2017, the D.I.G., Anti Corruption Bureau has written a letter to the Secretary, Rural Works Department seeking formal opinion with respect to lodging the F.I.R. against the petitioner and others after taking substantive decision to lodge the same as per Annexure-SA-1. It has further been stated that on perusal of the aforesaid letter, it would be evident that the same has been issued with reference to Cabinet Vigilance Circular, dated 07.08.2015,wherein, a detailed guideline for conducting the preliminary enquiry and purported action thereof has been defined and the relevant extract of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to I.A. No. 2631 of 2017. It has further been reiterated that even as per the aforesaid circular/guidelines before taking any decision over the preliminary enquiry report (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the respondents Vigilance Bureau/Anti Corruption Bureau was under obligation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and all other alleged persons affording an opportunity of explanation, but without issuing such notice/show cause in terms of Clause 21 (V), the aforesaid decision dated 03.05.2017 has been taken.