- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I., however his name transpired in the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. along with twelve other co-accused persons. It has been alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner while working as General Manager, Kustore area during the period from September, 2009 to 2011, he was responsible for the strict compliance of the laid down procedure of BCCL/CIL in the civil contract works in BCCL. He being the General Manager, did not point out that all the subject works (being the capital civil works) required either approval of concerned Director or the approval of the BCCL Board. Further, the petitioner did not ascertain the actual requirement of the said civil works. He approved the recommendations of the Tender Committee Members in respect of all the 16 files related to civil works without offering his comments. It has also been alleged that the petitioner out of a criminal conspiracy kept pending the recommendations of the Tender Committee (which was given in December, 2009) till 27th January, 2010 and got the same approved by the Additional General Manager Sri J. Chandra on 28th January, 2010. Further allegation against the petitioner is that he did not get budget allocation for the said works from BCCL Headquarters and without the same, the work orders were issued in all the said works. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not ensure that the payments to the contractors should not have been made without execution of the said works. It has further been alleged that the petitioner did not ensure the double payments of Rs. 07,49,818/- (rupees seven lac forty nine thousand eight hundred eighteen) should not have been made to the contractor against the same work order.;