Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 5.9.2012 passed in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 (Special Case No. 85 of 2010), whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge of the petitioner was rejected. It is the case of the prosecution that a decision was taken by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi to raise infrastructure of 8 newly upgraded high schools situated at Bokaro for which the State Government was to finance and the work was to be done departmentally through the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Bokaro.
(2.) FURTHER case is that the District Engineer entrusted one Ashok Kumar Bharti to do construction work of the buildings of 5 high schools. He did the work and took payment of a sum of Rs. 99,41,652/ - through cheque, issued by the petitioner being D.D.C. -cum -C.E.O., Zila Parishad, Bokaro. Subsequently, on physical verification when it was found that the work worth Rs. 62,79,870/ - has been done, rest of the amount of Rs. 40,19,677/ - was recovered and was deposited with the Treasury, Bokaro. Subsequently, it came to know that one Ashok Kumar Bharti along with other teachers were imparted training for taking job of civil engineer. Having received training, Ashok Kumar Bharti was entrusted to do construction work of the buildings of several high schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro District and thereby he misappropriated huge money and, therefore, a case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 (Special Case No. 85 of 2010) was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, charge -sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was taken against the petitioner. Thereupon an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the accusation stating therein that there has been absolutely no material showing culpability on his part in the alleged offence. That application was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2012 which is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that before lodging the case, the matter had been inquired into with respect to construction of the buildings of 5 upgraded high schools, during which it was found that when policy was made to get the buildings of upgraded school constructed through departmentally, job was entrusted by the petitioner being C.E.O. of Zila Parishad, Bokaro to the District Engineer but the District Engineer without taking approval of the petitioner entrusted the job to Ashok Kumar Bharti to whom payment was made through cheque by the petitioner when he had partly constructed the building. Since the District Engineer had had no separate account, it is for the petitioner to make payment from the fund received but as soon as the petitioner came to know that he has received the amount in excess than the work done, he immediately took steps for recovery of the amount and a sum of Rs. 40,19,677/ - was recovered and was deposited in the Treasury. In spite of all these findings being recorded during inquiry, case was registered against the petitioner and even charge -sheet was submitted, upon which the court took cognizance of the offences, whereas on the materials available on the record, one does not find any culpability on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, the court certainly did commit illegality in rejecting the petition for discharge.;