RAM CHANDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for quashing the Letter No. 5401 dated 03.05.2017(Annexure-11) issued under the signature of respondent No. 5 (DIG, ACB) to respondent No. 2 (the Secretary, Rural Works Department), within the meaning of Clause 21 (vi) of the Cabinet Vigilance Circular dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure-7) whereby and whereunder, in mechanical and arbitrary exercise of power and further after taking substantive decision to lodge an FIR on the basis of belated Enquiry Report dated 02.09.2016 in connection with P.E. No. 03/09 dated 07.03.2009, an empty communication has been made seeking opinion over the same which is pre-decisive, illegal, abritrary and above all in utter violation of clause 21 (v) r/w Clause 21 (viii) of the aforesaid circular, wherein firstly it is mandated that life for P.E. Shall be three months without specific extension and secondly, before taking any decision to lodge the FIR, ample opportunity of explanation shall be given to the alleged/affected persons. Further prayer has been made for quashing the ex parte Enquiry Report, dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-10), so far it relates to petitioner, whereby after 8-9 years of the execution of the works in question, meager loss amount i.e. less than 10 % has been sought to be saddled jointly on the Contractor, Executive Engineer, Junior Assistant Engineer, including petitioner. Further prayer has been made to declare and hold that since the entire impugned exercise of so called enquiry between 13.06.2016 to 17.06.2016, report thereof dated 02.09.2016 and the follow up impugned order dated 07.08.2015 are ex facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being hit by vices of mala fide in law.

(2.) The short facts in narrow compass is that the petitioner was posted in R.E.O. Works Sub- Division(now RWD), Deoghar as Assistant Engineer in the year 2006. While being posted there, certain works of rural roads were carried out under the said division, out of the State Sponsored Scheme, namely Babhangama REO Road to Tangidih (25 KM), Karma Pakki Road to Mohlidih Barmasiya(5.25 km), REO Road Diba to Mishradih (6.8km ), Deopahari to Manigarhi Road (7.5km) and Kenkhapra main road to satpahari via Sinhani (6.45 km), for which, due tender etc. was floated and the constructions of the said roads were carried out successfully at the relevant time strictly in terms with the sanctioned estimate and other prescribed stipulations thereunder. Since the aforesaid roads fell under the jurisdiction of the petitioner, who was the Assistant 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 aforesaid roads, the Secretary, Rural Works Department referred the matter to the Secretary, Ministerial Secretariat and Vigilance, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated-20.02009 for vigilance enquiry of roads constructed under the Deoghar and Pakur, Division in the tenure of Incharge, Executive Engineer, namely Paras Kumar and Rajdeo Singh respectively, enquired into. 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 all the roads between 15.04.2009 to 204.2009, 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 009.2016, which is impugned in this writ application. 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-11. 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. It has further been reiterated that even as per the aforesaid circular/guidelines before taking any decision over the preliminary enquiry report (Annexure-10 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.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 005.2017 as well as ex parte enquiry report, dated 02.09.2016, the petitioner in the instant writ application has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.