Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Narayan Sah vs State Of Jharkhand Thr Vigilan on 22 September, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2011 (4) AIR JHAR R 724
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 5849 of 2011
Shiv Narayan Sah ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Majumdar, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Rajesh Bardhan, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Spl.P.P.
------
6/ 22.09.2011Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.
The petitioner Shiv Narayan Sah, who was then posted at District Superintendent of Education, has been made accused for the offence under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 85 of 2010.
The case relates to embezzlement of huge amount of Government money in construction works of the school buildings in the district of Bokaro. The embezzlement was mainly done through one Ashok Kumar Bharti, who was only an Assistant Teacher, but he was given the charge of Junior Engineer, even though he was not qualified for the said charge and thereby, he was given the charge of construction work of all 124 schools in the district of Bokaro. There is direct allegation that huge embezzlement by was made by withdrawing the Government money even without making any construction of school buildings.
So far as this petitioner is concerned, there is allegation against him, being the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro that Even Though the said Ashok Kumar Bharti was appointed to work as Junior Engineer with respect to a particular school, but he was given the charge for construction of all 124 school buildings by this petitioner and the account was opened in the name of said Ashok Kumar Bharti under the direction of this petitioner, which was against the rules and further that the Bank account was not opened in any nationalized Bank, rather, it were opened in a Co-operative Banks, which was also against the rules. It is also stated that against the rules, cheques were handed over to Ashok Kumar Bharti directly, who withdrew the money. No agreement with regard to construction of school buildings was entered and still almost the work orders have been given orally for construction of the school 2. buildings. This apart, the financial power was also given to the said Ashok Kumar Bharti by this petitioner and all the Village Education Committees were directed by this petitioner to transfer the entire fund to said Ashok Kumar Bharti. For all these omissions and commissions, it is alleged that this petitioner used to get 12% commission from said Ashok Kumar Bharti.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been stated that there was a Public Interest Litigation filed before this Court with respect to embezzlement of the amount in the construction works of school buildings in Bokaro district, which was registered as W.P.(PIL) No. 1530 of 2009, wherein by order dated 22.5.2009 it was directed that Ashok Kumar Bharti must stop discharging the work of Junior Engineer and he was directed to hand over the charge of supervision of the construction of 124 schools to the Public Works Department. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was the petitioner, who by his letter dated 29.8.2009, which is annexed as Annexure-6 to this application, had directed to lodge F.I.R. against Ashok Kumar Bharti and subsequently, on 19.1.2010 by Annexure-7, to this application, the petitioner had filed a certificate case against said Ashok Kumar Bharti for realization of the amount. It has further been submitted that Ashok Kumar Bharti was given the charge of Junior Engineer not by this petitioner, rather, he was given the said charge by order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and whatever work was taken from Ashok Kumar Bharti was only subsequent to the said order of the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel has submitted with regard to the allegation of 12% commission, that only after actions were taken by this petitioner, the said allegation was levelled against him. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for bail.
Learned Spl. P.P., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail submitting that even though there was a clear direction by this Court in the aforesaid PIL on 22.5.2009 that no work should be taken from Ashok Kumar Bharti, but in spite of that, the work was being to be taken from Ashok Kumar Bharti for about three months thereafter and only after repeated directions by the higher authorities, the petitioner stopped taking work from him and issued the letters referred above. It has further been submitted that the enquiry was set up by the order of this Court in the aforesaid PIL and it has come in the enquiry that the petitioner used to advance even second and third installments of the fund without getting the utilization certificates and without 3. even any construction of the buildings and the witnesses have also supported the fact that for these omissions and commissions, 12% commission was being taken by this petitioner. It is further submitted that it has been found in the enquiry that fund up to the extent of 85% was advanced to said Ashok Kumar Bharti by this petitioner without any construction work of the school buildings.
In the aforementioned facts and circumstance, taking into consideration the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner Shiv Narayan Sah, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.