D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B/420/ 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arising out of R.C. No. 3(A)/2008-D instituted on 13.3.2008.
(2.) It was alleged that the petitioner Major (Retd.) Badri Sahani proprietor of M/s. Paropkar Security Services. Ranchi entered into criminal conspiracy with the Assistant Chief Security Officer, CCL N.K. Area, Dakra. Ranchi and in pursuance to such conspiracy he deployed less than 90% Ex-Servicemen Security Guards at N.K. Dakra area, under CCL in violation of terms of contract effective from March 2006 to December 2007. According to the terms. Security Guards were to be deployed by the petitioner not less than 90% in number of the total strength from Ex-Servicemen category as per the norms of Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. Being the proprietor of M/s. Paropkar Security Services the petitioner submitted monthly salary bills falsely showing that 90% Ex-Servicemen and 10% Civilians were deployed in the said project as' guards which was found false and the bills were certified by the Assistant Chief Security Officer, Manoj Kumar Singh and thereby the latter facilitated the petitioner for the release of payment of monthly salaiy total amounting to Rs. 52.92.629/- causing wrongful loss to CCL.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset admitted agreement between the CCL and M/s. Paropkar Security Sendees, owned by the petitioner for deployment of guards as per the terms and conditions laid down therein. However, as per the norms of the Director General of Resettlement. Ministry of Defence. Govt, of India, New Delhi, the petitioner deployed 90% Ex-Servicemen and 10% Civilians as guards which was checked time to time by Captain Manoj Kumar Singh, who was the Assistant Chief Security Officer, CCL and only on his counter signature payment of salary of the Security Guards of both the categories used to be made. It was laid down in the contract that if on any date, the strength of security personnel deployed would be less than the prescribed, in such cases, pro-rate deduction would be made from the monthly bills prescribed by the petitioner to the extent of less than days deployed in that particular month. As a matter of fact, the deed of agreement was executed for deployment of 50 security personnel out of which 90% were to be deployed from the Ex-Servicemen category and 10% from the civilians but at no point of time IInd party to the contract viz. CCL raised any objection. The petitioner received payment of total sum amounting to Rs. 49,42,000/- towards the salary bills from the office of G.M. N.K. Area Dakara CCL. The petitioner had made representation to the Chief of Security, CCL Headquarters. Darbhanga House. Ranchi on 8.10.2007 stating inter alia that the salary structure as provided to the guards, specially to the Ex-Servicemen was not satisfactory and for such reason they were not coming forward for the job of Security Guards and therefore, it was requested by the petitioner to the authorities to provide their salary as per prescribed rate, as recommended by the DGR (Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit). Even if it was assumed for the argument sake that the required percentage of Ex-Servicemen was not deployed by the petitioner, it was well within the knowledge of CCL authorities without objection or deduction in payment whatsoever. Admittedly, wages provided by the CCL to Ex-Servicemen as Security Guards were much less than the recommendation of the Wages Board of Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India and the said fact was acquiesced by the second party of the contract, CCL authority.;