- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 85 of 2010. The case relates to huge bungling of the Government money in construction of school buildings in the district of Bokaro and the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher, was entrusted with the supervision work of the construction of school buildings in the district of Bokaro. It also appears that the petitioner somehow also undertook the construction works of those school buildings. The bungling of the Government money was brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1530 of 2009. This Court took notice of the fact that a school teacher (i.e., this petitioner) was allowed to discharge the duty of Junior Engineer when Junior Engineer was available in the Public Works Department. As it was found that there was misappropriation of huge amount of public money, this Court directed the Director General of Police, Vigilance, to make thorough enquiry and submit a detailed report fixing the responsibility for missing and misappropriating the public money, which was meant for construction of school buildings in the district of Bokaro. Thereafter, the present case was instituted by the Vigilance Department and investigation was taken up. Upon investigation, it has been found that so far as this petitioner is concerned, there are following allegations against him, as detailed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Vigilance:- "10. That in the construction work of 125 new primary school + 5 upgraded middle school total 130 school and total sanctioned amount of Rs. 5,78,92,265/- against the aforesaid construction of school building and money was withdrawn against the sanctioned is Rs. 5,63,76,900/- and construction work was made of Rs. 4,79,86,767/- and remaining amount Rs. 83,90,133/- is unadjusted and uncountable and it is lying with this petitioner. 11. That in construction of 7 Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential school, the total sanctioned amount is Rs. 2,79,52,000/- and this petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- and out of which, Rs. 1,39,96,078 work was made in the aforesaid construction work, and remaining amount Rs. 80,03,922.00 is still unadjusted and ineducable and it is lying with this petitioner. It is also pointed out that in the said construction, 1 school work was found completed and 5 school work were found incomplete possession and 1 school building construction work has not yet been started (CD No. 7 page- 302 to 303). 12. That in construction of 5 new upgraded high school building, total sanctioned amount is Rs. 3,40,50,000/- in which this petitioner had withdrawn Rs. 1,02,99,547/- against the aforesaid sanctioned amount and out of which, the construction work was made Rs. 62,79,870/- and remaining amount is Rs. 40,19,677/- is still lying with this petitioner. (CD No. 7 page 299 to 301). 13. That it is further stated that this petitioner had deposited Rs. 40,19,677.00 through Bank DD N/R in the Govt. Teasury at Bokaro from dated 9.7. 09 to dated 9.1. 10. (CD No. 7 page 326). 14. That it is stated and submitted that the total amount of Rs. 2,04,13,732 is ineducable in the aforesaid construction of the school building and from which, after deducting the deposited amount Rs. 40,19,677/-, the rest amount of Rs. 1,63,94,055.00 is still lying with this petitioner and this amount has not been deposited in the State Treasury, neither this petitioner had shown any utilization certificate against the aforesaid amount, thus, the such aforesaid amount is found to be embezzled by this petitioner and it has occurred a wrongful loss to the State Government fund by this petitioner for his personal gain." Thus, from the investigations made by the Vigilance, it has been found that Rs. 1,63,94,055/- is still lying unaccounted for, with the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted that most of the works were completed and in any event, so far as the allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 80,03,992/- which relate to construction of six school buildings of Kasturba Ghandhi Girls Residential Schools, is concerned, it is submitted that for this allegation, separate cases have been filed, in which, the petitioner has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Court below itself in five cases. LEARNED counsel has brought on record the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in A.B.P. Nos. 242 of 2009, 243 of 2009, 244 of 2009, 12 of 2010 and 13 of 2010, by which, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. On perusal of this order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, I find that the Court below has taken note of the order passed by the High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1530 of 2009 expressing that there was misappropriation of huge amount of public money in the construction works of the school buildings and the High Court had also expressed a sort of anguish as to how a person who was only a school teacher (i.e., this petitioner)was given the charge of Junior Engineer even though the Junior Engineer was available in the Public Works Department and even taking note of the fact that this Court had directed vigilance enquiry into the matter, the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the main hero of the entire episode and all the allegations revolve round him. At this stage, I do not intend to pass any adverse order against the officer concerned, but the least that is required to be done is that the matter be enquired into as to how such order has been passed by the Court below. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court is directed to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side, in case fault is found against the officer concerned in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail pointing out from the supplementary counter affidavit that huge bungling have been made by the petitioner, who was entrusted with the construction works and still Rs. 1,63,94,055/- is unaccounted for with the petitioner. Taking into consideration the gravity of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Bharti, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Let a copy of this order be made available to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court for the needful.;