Disposed

Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2023WPC/2142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL regarding alleged defalcation of funds under the MGNREGA scheme. Finding that an FCIR was registered under the relevant penal provisions but investigation was slow, the Court directed respondents to complete the investigation within six months or apply for an extension.

What did the court decide?

Direction to expedite investigation and complete it within six months, with liberty to apply for extension if genuine impediments exist.

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (PIL) No. 2142 of 2021

¶3

Ranjeet Kumar Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Krishna Singh, resident of Village & P.O.- Hafua, P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra.

¶4

... ... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.

¶7

Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jharkhand, through the Director General of Police, having office at Andre House, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S.-Gonda, Town and District- Ranchi.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, having office at P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag … … ... Respondents

¶9

--------- CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

--------For the Petitioner: Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II

¶11

¶12

06/Dated: 03.07.2023

¶13

This matter has been taken up in hybrid mode. Nobody has any

¶14

objection to that.

¶15

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, ( Per , Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1. By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶18

(a) To direct the respondents, in particular respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to do the needful in the matter of complaint made by the petitioner and another in respect of defalcation by the public servants relating to MANREGA Scheme Nos. 425/10-11; 25/11-12; 567/10-11 and 469/10-11 in preparation of fake muster roll with respect to construction of wells under another MANREGA scheme.

¶19

(b) To direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to explain before this Hon'ble Court as to what action has been taken pursuant to Preliminary Enquiry (P.E.) dated 9.11.2016, submitted in

¶20

-2-

¶21

Compliant No. 377/2016, as the respondents are sitting tight over the matter for last more than four years from the date the report in the Preliminary Enquiry was submitted, which itself discloses that there is defalcation of lakhs of rupees by the public servants involved therein, but still no FIR has been lodged for the reasons best known to the respondents.

¶22

1. The main allegation of the petitioner is that there has been swindling of funds by public servants in execution of public works.

¶23

1. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents and special reference has been made by the learned counsel for the State to paragraphs 7 and 8 which are quoted hereinbelow for proper appreciation:-

¶24

“7. That is humbly stated and submitted that on the basis of that inquiry report again preliminary Enquiry was conducted by Inspector Sri Ram Paswan, Inspector Sri Bindeswari Das and Inspector Sri Shankar Thakur. As per the enquiry report a well has already been built under the scheme-567/10-11. Hence no defalcation has been found out with regard to this scheme, the case is same with scheme no. -25/11-12. The well has been found built accordingly under the same scheme. Though in the name of Srimati Rupa Rani instead of Sri Bajijnath Pathak and while transferring the scheme to Rupa Rani from Baijnath Pathak the process has been followed by the competent authority. Hence no defalcation has been found out in this scheme also.

¶25

8. That is humbly stated and submitted that the enquiry has been conducted by the competent officers of ACB and found guilty of defalcating the allotted public money by concerned public servants, supplier and beneficiaries for the scheme no 475/10-11 and 469/10-11 related the Sima Panchayat Chatra, Block, District-Chatra.”

¶26

1. It is borne out from the records and the pleadings that on the basis of the report submitted by Inspector Shankar Thakur, A.C.B. (Hazairbagh) P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022 has been

¶27

-3-

¶28

registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been lodged. At present, the petitioner is complaining that the investigation is moving at a slow pace.

¶29

1. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to expedite the investigation of the case and complete the same within a period of six months hence, if there is no other impediment. If there is any impediment and the investigation is held up because of any genuine reason, then the respondents, especially respondent No.3, will be at liberty to file an application for extension of time stipulated by us.

¶30

1. With such observations, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶31

1. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶32

1. Urgent certified copies as per rules.

¶33

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶34

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶35

Manoj/MM

Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hemendra Pratap Dehati Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Sreenath Engineering Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Its Director Kumar Mitra Vs Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushil Ignatius Minz Vs Personnel and Adminis Reform

Aakash Telecom and Power Infrastructure through Its Partner Mahesh Kumar Sinha Vs National Highways Authority of India through Its Project Director