Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

78. Secondly, it was argued by the petitioners that the GFR were merely statutory instructions and the same were not binding on the Commission. It was argued that the breach of non-statutory guidelines is not enforceable in a Court of law and the only remedy against violation is to bring it before a higher authority. It was further argued that the GFR is not a document that has been relied upon by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and the State could not be permitted to produce documents at his stage when charges have been framed. While it is stated in the charge dated 08.12.2022 that the appointments were made "against Rules and Regulations, against procedure, in contravention of GFR Rules, Office Orders, Office Memorandum of the Government and Finance Department issued from time to time and also in contravention of DCW Act 1994", however, no particulars of the particular provisions that have been violated are mentioned.

79. The prosecution has contested the same and argued that the DCW was bound to follow the provisions of GFR. They have also relied upon the statement and note of Mr. Manoj Kumar, Deputy Secretary-V (Finance) in this regard. It was argued that it is sufficient that GFR establishes a crucial and beneficial procedure and it is immaterial whether GFR can attain status as statutory instructions. It was argued that the GFR provides that expenditure from public funds cannot be incurred without sanction from the competent authority and the same cannot be incurred for the benefit of any particular person or section of people. It was also argued that the same provides for an elaborate mechanism for procurement of services that was not followed in the present case. It was further argued that the GFR is a public document and the contents of the same cannot disputed.

80. It is relevant to note that the allegations against the petitioners is not in regard to simpliciter violation of GFR. The case is that the petitioners arbitrarily recruited people that were associated with AAP or known to them by abusing their positions as public servants, without advertising the posts, in violation of the GFR, office orders and office memorandum that were issued from time to time by the Government and Finance Department to arbitrarily appoint. Insofar as the argument regarding GFR not being a relied upon document is concerned, the petitioners have placed reliance on the cases of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (supra) and State of Maharashtra v. Plethico Pharmaceuticals (supra). In the first case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had made an observation that it was required that all the documents the prosecution seeks to rely upon and the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC are to be made part of the chargesheet. In the latter case, the document in question that had not been made a part of the chargesheet was the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The judgements relied upon are not relevant in the facts of the present case.

81. In the present case, the document has been contended to have not been listed as a relied upon document and still finds mention in the impugned order is the GFR. The same is undisputably a public document. It is not the case of the petitioners that the prosecution misled the learned Trial Court with regard to the contents of the GFR and there were no provisions in the same regarding appointments or expenditure, but rather, that GFR are not binding to begin with and even if so, GFR have not been violated.