SADAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by an Ex-MLA, Nabarangpur and another with a prayer to direct the State Vigilance Authority to initiate criminal proceeding under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against opposite party no.5, who has allegedly misappropriated Government funds as per the suggestion of the Audit Report and to direct the State Election Commission to take immediate steps against opposite party no.5, whohas furnished false affidavit, as per the representation dated 19.01.2011 submitted by the petitioner no.1. The petitioners further pray to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation or other independent organization to cause an enquiry to find out the veracity of truth of misappropriation of public fund by the public officer allotted by the Central Government as well as the State Government for the development of K.B.K district under different scheme.

(2.) During the years 2005-06 and 2008-09 Government funds were allocated for purchase of cement and rice under different Central Government schemes in connection with developmental work of Nandahandi Block in the district of Nabarangpur. It is alleged that during the said period opposite party no.5 was working as Senior Clerk-cum-Store inCharge of the Block, who was maintaining stock registers regarding despatch of cement and rice to different parties and also maintaining cash registers towards the payment made to different persons during the relevant period for the development work of the Block. At that time, opposite party no.5 and many others under the active assistance of Government officials, it is alleged, misappropriated crores of rupees pertaining to Nandahandi Block and tried level best for suppression of material facts and to shield the culprits from liabilities. In such process, opposite party no.5 became clutch free by accepting his resignation and allowed him to contest as MLA from 75 Constituency of Orissa from the ruling party showing no Government dues pending against him without initiation of vigilance case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1908 for commission of offence under Sections 468, 469 and 470, IPC. The petitioners further alleged that opposite party no.5 had also furnished false affidavit before the Election Officer notwithstanding the report of the Local Fund Audit and the Special Audit and the Block Development Officer's own assessment making him liable for recovery of the same wherein both the audit report, it is suggested for recovery and initiation of proceeding, but till date no action has been initiated against opposite party no.5 despite the representation of the petitioner no.1 before the Election Commission as well as Director General of Vigilance.

(3.) The opposite party no.2, through the Addl. BDO, has filed a counter affidavit.