Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O Deorao Pohekar vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar , ... on 2 September, 2025
Judgment
457 revn53.20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2020
Dilip s/o Deorao Pohekar,
aged about 61 years, occupation retired,
r/o 24, Padole Layout, Ring Road,
Parsodi, Nagpur - 440 022. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sadar, Nagpur.
2. Anti Corruption Bureau,
thorough its Police Inspector,
having its office at Administrative
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ..... Non-applicants.
Shri R.R.Vyas, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Anant Ghongre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 08/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02/09/2025
JUDGMENT
.....2/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 2
1. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Anant Ghongre for the State.
2. The present revision is filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.3309/2016 registered under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109 and 120-B of the IPC with the non-applicant/police against rejection of discharge application vide Exh.108 in Special ACB Case No.1/2018 dated 5.8.2019.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision are as under:
The applicant was working as Superintending Engineer in Water Resources Department. In the wake of PIL No.83/2012 (Lok Nayak Bapuji Aney Samajsevi Sanstha vs. State and ors) and PIL No.92/2012 .....3/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 3 (Janmanch vs. State and ors), the Government of Maharashtra vide order No.ACB/0115/pra.kra.46/Pol-2 dated 18.2.2015 had ordered an open enquiry into the allegations pertaining to irregularities in the irrigation projects of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (the VIDC). Subsequently, the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra, vide order No.EO/16/Nagpur/2015-3961, dated 26.3.2015, had directed the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nagpur to conduct open enquiry into the allegations of corruption made in respect of Gosikhurd Irrigation Project under the VIDC Nagpur. It was alleged that the applicant was working as Superintending Engineer and he was part of the tendering process which was conducted for the allotment of tender work of Tail Branch Canal under the Mokhabardi Lift Irrigation Scheme in Gosikhurd National Irrigation Project. The applicant has not acted in terms of the .....4/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 4 Maharashtra Public Works Manual and he should have taken necessary steps before allotment of tender by evaluating the necessary requirements. It was alleged that at the time of opening of the tender, Competent Authority Mr.P.D.Matkar appeared as representative of S.N.Thakkar Constructions Pvt.Ltd. and signed on the memorandum of attendance which was deliberately ignored by the applicant. It was further alleged that while scrutinizing the pre-qualification form, the applicant changed the conditions and relaxed the conditions from 40% to 60% and thereby changed the terms in the per-qualification form. While conducting scrutiny of the per-qualification form, initially published word "and" is replaced by word "or" and thereby allowed the tenderer company illegally as successive bidder. The applicant has acted illegally by ignoring interest of public at large and cheated the Government and thereby committed misconduct while .....5/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 5 working on the post of public servant. The failure on the part of the applicant to conduct the tendering process properly, resulted in the allotment of work order to a firm which was not qualified as per the tender conditions of the said work. Not only the applicant has not followed the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Works Manual but also he has helped the contractors M/s.R.J.shah and Company Ltd. and D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd. (JV Firm) by accepting the invalid certificates of previous experience, which were required as 'prime contractors, but were submitted by 'sub-contractors. The five of the previous work experience certificates submitted by M/s.D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd were of 'sub- contractors". This particular aspect has been deliberately neglected by the applicant with oblique motive while preparing the evaluation sheet for causing the benefit to the successful contractor J.V.Firm. During course of .....6/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 6 investigation, it was revealed that the applicant had favoured the successful contractors by way of illegally updating the tender cost by the applicant during the tendering process had illegally revised the estimated cost of the tender from Rs.51.09 crores to Rs.53.88 crores and thereby has caused illegal costs updation of Rs.2.79 crores.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not contravened any of conditions for issuing public notice by inviting tender taking sanction for the same. There was no requirement for registration of joint ventures in the Maharashtra State for contract. Technical sanction has already been granted on 25.5.2019 for issuing public notice inviting tenders. The applicant has not contravened any condition while scrutinizing the tenders submitted by the tenderer company and, therefore, no case is made out for against the applicant as the applicant .....7/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 7 is exonerated from the departmental enquiry. He further submitted tender notice was published vide tender notice No.1/2009-10 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ambhora Lift Irrigation Division, Bhiwapur and was published in newspaper. The tender notice was also published on the official website of the VIDC and Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The estimated cost of work was computed at Rs.51,09,57,984/-. The initial bid submitted the joint venture (lowest )bidder) was for Rs.63,09,82,000/- which was 23.49% above the estimated cost of work. It was negotiated for a sum of Rs.56,57,32,680/-. Initially, when the estimation of tender was computed, the directives pertaining to labour amenities were not taken into consideration. The said omission was unintentional since the project was declared as a National Project in the year 2008 when the estimate for the work was under preparation. The bids which are .....8/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 8 upto 5% above, the estimated tender cost/revised estimated cost, are approved by a committee headed by the Secretary of Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra. The said committee comprises of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Executive Director, VIDC and two Chief Engineers including one under whose jurisdiction the work is to be executed and the Superintending Engineer, VIDC, who is the Principal Secretary of the Committee. Bids, which are 15% above the estimated/revised tender cost, are placed before the Finance Committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Maharashtra. The estimated tender cost should be updated and then placed before the appropriate authority/committee for seeking approval for allotment of work in favour of the lowest tenderer. He further submitted that the Wadnere Committee in its report observed that labour amenities .....9/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 9 were wrongly taken into consideration. However, it does not refer communication dated 9.5.2007 which directs that the guidelines of Central Water Works Commission should be followed and taken into consideration while implementation of the project and, therefore, no case is made out against the applicant. The State Government has not suffered any monetary loss. The applicant has not forged any documents. Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and, therefore, order passed by the trial court rejecting the discharge application deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the application and submitted that during the investigation of the crime it was revealed that being the Superintending Engineer of the work under Gosikhurd National Irrigation Project of the VIDC, .....10/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 10 Nagpur, it was the duty of the applicant to conduct the tendering process as per the norms prescribed in the Maharashtra Public Works Manual. The applicant with an intention to favour contractors M/s.R.J.shah and Company Ltd. and D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd. accepted the invalid certificates of previous experience. This particular aspect of submitting incorrect certificates was ignored by the applicant. The applicant has also favoured the successful contractors by way of illegally updating the tender cost by willfully adding the cost relating to labour amenities to original tender costs. The Expert Member Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra has also given opinion that the applicant is responsible for the above illegalities during the said tendering process. The sub-contractor's certificates are not valid as per the conditions in pre-qualification document as it is required that the certificate should be of a prima-
.....11/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 11 contractor for qualification. The Wadnere Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra had also pointed out that the updation of tender cost by Rs.2.79 crores after publishing the tender notice on the count of labour amenities was not regular. Therefore, the chargesheet filed against the applicant is well founded. The involvement of the applicant is in the serious offence. The law on the issue as to what is to be considered of an accused is well settled. The law on the issue as to what is to be considered of an accused is well settled. The settled position of law is that at the stage of framing charges, the entire evidence produce by the prosecution is to be believed.
6. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see considerations for considering the application for discharge.
.....12/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 12
7. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/ SC/1113 2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of law in its earlier decisions in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and The State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The State of .....13/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 13 MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338, has held as under:
"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the .....14/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 14 prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused .....15/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 15 has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
9. Thus, at the stage of considering the application for discharge, the defence of the accused is not to be looked into. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be understood as the documents and materials, if any, produced by the prosecution. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is .....16/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 16 to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. At the stage of entertaining the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court cannot analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution and defence or the points or possible cross examination of the defence. The case of the prosecution is to be accepted as it is.
10. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and anr, reported in (1973)3 SCC 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After adverting to the .....17/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 17 various decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has enumerated the following principles:
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of .....18/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 18 universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a .....19/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 19 roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
11. In the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors, reported in AIR 2023 SC 2480 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles governing the application for discharge and observed that law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
.....20/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 20
12. The discharge application is filed on the ground that no case is made out against the applicant as no loss is caused to the Government. Perusal of the investigation papers reveals, as under:
a) prior to receiving a technical sanction from the Chief Engineer, Gosikhurd Project, tender was forwarded and tender notice was issued for the publication;
b) proper entries about purchase of pre-
qualification form by the contractor are not recorded nor a certificate annexed by the contractor are duly verified;
c) during the scrutiny of pre-qualification form, applicant committed forgery and used a word "or" in place of "and" illegally and thereby assisted contractor in sanctioning of tender illegally;
.....21/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 21
d) applicant was member of committee who has wrongly recommended for updation of tender costs and thereafter increased costs of tender;
e) successful tenderer company has not submitted a registered document of partnership deed or joint venture. However, after receiving a complaint about illegal acceptance of the tender form, a belated joint venture has submitted alleged joint venture agreement, subsequently with the pre- qualification;
f) Deed of Guarantee submitted by the successful tenderer company was forged and in spite of having knowledge thereof, no action was initiated against it;
g) successful tenderer company has also submitted a demand draft of EMD of the competitive .....22/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 22 company, it is from its own account which was not verified by the applicant; and
h) demand draft of EMD deposited by the contractor during tender process were not deposited in the account of VIDC and its entries were not property noted.
13. Perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet reveals that accusations made against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. He has misused his position assisting the successful bidder and thereby committed while performing his duty as Superintending Engineer. It further shows that the applicant illegally sanctioned updation and thereby updated tender cost to the extent of Rs.51,09,57,984/- to Rs.56,57,32,680/-.
14. The investigation papers further shows that the applicant has favoured the successful contractors by way of .....23/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 23 illegally updating the tender cost by willfully adding the cost relating to labour amenities to original tender costs and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.2.79 crores. The applicant has also helped the contractors by accepting the invalid certificates of previous experience. The opinion collected during the investigation of The Expert Member Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra shows that the applicant is responsible for the above illegalities during the said tendering process. The Wadnere Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra has also discloses involvement of the applicant in illegal activities. The applicant has claimed that since the tender has been cancelled, there is no financial loss to the State Exchequer. However, the applicant has imposed liability of the Government by way of illegal updation and he has committed offence mentioned in the chargesheet.
.....24/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 24
15. The another ground raised in the applicant is that the applicant is discharged from the departmental enquiry.
16. The charge framed in the departmental enquiry against the applicant is reproduced, as under, for the purpose of reference:
"Jh- fn- ns- ikgsdj] rRdkyhu vf/k{kd vfHk;ark gs xkslh[kqnZ milk flapu eaMG] vackMh ¼HkaMkjk½ ;sFks vf/k{kd vfHk;ark ;k inkoj ¼fn 17-05-2005 rs 3-9-2009½ dk;Zjr vlrkauk xkslh[kqnZ izdYikP;k cka/kdkekph vankti=ds r;kj djrkuk o fufonk fLod`rhlkBh v|;kor fdaer dk<rkauk fu;eckg; rjrqnh dsY;k- R;keqGs R;kaps dMwu drZO;kr dlwj o vfu;ferrk >kyh- R;k djhrk R;kaP;koj [kkyhy nks"kkjksi Bso.;kr ;sr vkgsr-
nks"kkjksi dzekad & 1 xkslh[kqnZ izdYikP;k cka/kdkekph vankti=ds r;kj djrkuk fu;eckg; rjrqnh dsY;keqGs cka/kdkekP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- rlsp eqG vankti=dkr T;k ckchapk varHkkZo vkgs- R;kO;frfjDr pqdhP;k ckch fufonsrhy dkekph v|;kor vankftr fdaer dk<rkuk varHkwZr dsY;k Eg.ktsp fufonsP;k v|;kor fdaerh pqdhP;k i/nrhus dk<Y;k- rlsp pqdhP;k i/nrhus dk<ysys fufonk vf/kD;kps izLrko ofj"B Lrjkoj lknj dsys-
.....25/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 25 R;keqGs fufonkaP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- ifj.kkeh izdYikP;k cka/kdkekP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- lnjP;k ok<ysY;k fderhl rs tckcnkj vkgsr-
Whereas, while conducting the investigation, allegations levelled against the applicant are that at the time of opening of tender, he allowed Competent Authority Mr.P.D.Matkar appeared as representative of S.N.Thakkar Constructions Pvt.Ltd. and signed on the memorandum of attendance. While scrutinizing the pre- qualification form, the applicant changed the conditions and relaxed the conditions from 40% to 60% and thereby changed the terms in the pre-qualification form. The applicant has also committed forgery while conducting scrutiny of the pre-qualification form, initially published word "and" is replaced by word "or" and thereby allowed the tenderer company illegally as successive bidder.
.....26/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 26
17. Thus, the applicant has acted against public at large and caused loss to the Government by misusing his official position and helped the tenderer illegally. The act of the applicant covers under Section 13(1)(d) of the P..C. Act which states that (i) if a public servant by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the applicant is already exonerated from the departmental enquiry on the same charges, he cannot be prosecuted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel .....27/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 27 for the applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and anr, reported in (2020)9 SCC 636 which also shows that after referring the various judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out the ratio of those decisions by referring its earlier judgment and observations in para No.38 in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011)3 SCC 581, which are reproduced as follows:
"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :-
(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
.....28/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 28
(iii)Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other;
(iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and .....29/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 29
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can not be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases".
The Hon'ble Apex Court finally concluded that in our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.
.....30/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 30
19. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that standard of proof is much higher than that of adjudicating proceeding. The authority has not been able to prove in the adjudicating proceeding and the applicant has been exonerated on the same allegations and, therefore, the applicant has to be discharged from the charges.
20. This aspect is also dealt with by the the Three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 wherein it is observed that, "We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and in order to decipher the true ratio of the case, we have read the judgment relied on very closely. In this case, the allegations against the delinquent employee in the departmental proceeding and criminal case were one and the same, that is, possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources .....31/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 31 of income. The Central Bureau of Investigation, the prosecutor to assess the value of the assets relied on the valuation report given later on.
It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the earlier judgment P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR OnLine 1996 SC 54 that the said decision, therefore, does not lay down any proposition that on exoneration of an employee in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the identical charge or the evidence has to be quashed. It is well settled that the decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not what flows from it. Mere fact that in said case, this Court quashed the prosecution when the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceeding would not mean that it was quashed on that ground. It is further held that, we are, therefore, of the opinion that .....32/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 32 the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities.
21. Perusal of the charges in the departmental enquiry and allegations levelled in the present crime, admittedly, shows that the same are not identical. Perusal of the material on record shows that there is no dispute the applicant was working as the Chief Engineer from 30.1.2016 and retire don 30.9.2016. Prior to that, he was .....33/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 33 working as Superintending Engineer. The allegations in the departmental enquiry are to the extent illegalities and irregularities are committed by him while carrying out tendering process. On the contrary, charges levelled during the investigation, that besides the illegalities and irregularities, while carrying out tendering process, the applicant, by misusing his position, committed forgery in tendered document by removing "and " and inserting "or" only to give advantage to the contractor. He also accepted incorrect certificate from the contractor on the basis of which the contractor has to be disqualified, but he was declared as qualified. Thus, the applicant has played active role during the aforesaid process. He has also acted against the rules and provisions of Public Works Manual and increased the tender and caused the loss to the Government. The committee is appointed in view of the directions of this court in PIL No.83/2012 and PIL .....34/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 34 No.92/2012 conducted the enquiry. The applicant was working as Superintending Engineer and he was part of the tendering process which was conducted for the allotment of tender work of Tail Branch Canal under the Mokhabardi Lift Irrigation Scheme in Gosikhurd National Irrigation Project. During the enquiry, it was revealed that being Superintending Engineer it was the duty to conduct tendering process as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Works Manual. The applicant has helped contractors by accepting the invalid certificates of previous experience. The applicant had favoured the successful contractors by way of illegally updating the tender cost by willfully adding the cost relating to labour amenities to original tender costs. The evidence further shows that the Wadnere Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra had also pointed out that the updation of .....35/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 35 tender cost by Rs.2.79 crores after publishing the tender notice on the count of labour amenities was not regular.
22. Thus, the allegations against the applicant in the chargesheet are well founded.
23. Thus, after having sifted and weighed the evidence on record collected during investigation, it shows involvement of the applicant in serious offence. Mere exoneration of the applicant in the departmental enquiry is not sufficient to discharge him. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of framing of the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of .....36/-
Judgment 457 revn53.20 36 charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons.
24. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, learned Judge below has rightly rejected the application. The position of law has been applied correctly to the facts of the present matter to arrive at the conclusion that there is no substance in application for discharge. As such, as no other view can be taken, the revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 04/09/2025 16:30:43