Disposed

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2023WPC/3217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a PIL alleging illegal saving of public funds by keeping project money in personal accounts. The Court made a prior direction absolute, ordering funds to be kept in departmental accounts, and directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate allegations of misappropriation based on supplementary affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Order absolute directing funds in departmental accounts; ACB directed to investigate allegations of misappropriation of public funds based on supplementary affidavits.

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (PIL) No. 3217 of 2019

¶3

Arun Kumar Dubey, aged about 57 years, S/o. Late Damodar Dubey, R/o. Harihar Singh Road, Mobile Tower, Manda Bagicha, Near Patna Khatal, PO/PS, Bariyatu, Misirgonda alias Pathargonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education & Family Welfare, Nepal House, P.O. GPO & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. GPO & P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Executive Engineer NREP-I, Rural Development (Special Division), Vikash Bhawan, PO/PS Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶10

The Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Audrey House, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … ... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III

¶14

¶15

14/Dated: 03.07.2023

¶16

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

¶17

objection to that.

¶18

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

¶19

passed the following, ( Per , Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1. By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for

¶22

the following reliefs:-

¶23

(a) For the direction upon the respondent no. 2 to submit a report before this Hon'ble Court, as to how & why, the offices of the state govt., especially, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, has preferred to adopt the departmental work in place of taking construction work through contractor & asserts that, of fund they are going to save 9.1% Contractor, but, they keep on delaying the project for years together so that, the prices

¶24

-2-

¶25

of the cost of construction may go up and they will earn illegal money through interest.

¶26

(b) For the directions upon the respondents no. 2 & 6 to enquire & investigate the construction of the CHC'S, (Community Health Centre) whose money has been disbursed in the financial year 2009-10, but still some of them are not complete or, it has been revised from 3.53 crores to higher slab and the reasons for noncompletion is nothing but the mischievous design of Assistant Engineer & Junior Engineers who have kept the money in their account for years together, and without administrative approval or, sanction, the prices of the Construction foe ach CHC, has been enhanced, causing thereby, the cheating, embezzlement of public money in crores.

¶27

(c) For the direction upon the respondent to submit the enquiry report & report of the investigation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and direction upon the respondent no. 2 to submit a report as to how much of money Junior & Assistant engineers have earned illegally from the interest in keeping the public money in their own personal accounts in saving accounts.

¶28

(d) For the direction, upon the respondent no. 2 to submit a report about the similar acts committed by the in general in keeping the project money in their account and earning interest out of that.

¶29

1. In this case, on directions several affidavits have been filed by the State but the petitioner is not satisfied and going on seeking further directions from the Court for filing further affidavits.

¶30

1. Since the main issue in this case is that the money for execution of the public works are being kept in the personal/savings bank accounts of the Officers/Incharge of execution of such works, we have already given a direction on 1^st May, 2023 to stop this practice and for all future execution of public works through the Department, the funds allocated shall be kept in the bank account opened in the name of the Department. Such order passed is made absolute by us today.

¶31

-3-

¶32

1. We further direct that since the appellant is alleging that in many cases such money is kept idle for many years and the Officers concerned are being illegally benefited by the interest accrued thereon, we hereby dispose of this Public Interest Litigation by directing the respondent No.6 - Director General of Police, AntiCorruption Bureau, Ranchi, to examine all these complaints in the light of the supplementary affidavits filed on different dates by the State and take a decision whether to initiate appropriate enquiry and if he does so and on preliminary enquiry it is found that there has been misappropriation/temporary misappropriation of public funds, then appropriate orders shall be passed by respondent No.6 for initiation of criminal proceedings by lodging F.I.R., but, if he is of the considered opinion that there has been no misappropriation/ temporary misappropriation depending upon the facts of the case as per the directions, he may direct the particular matter to be closed.

¶33

1. With such observations, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. We hope and trust that respondent No.6 shall act upon on production of certified copy of this order along the copies of the entire order-sheets and supplementary affidavits filed by the State, within a period of three weeks by the petitioner and complete the procedure within a period of three months thereafter.

¶34

1. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶35

1. Urgent certified copies as per rules.

¶36

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶37

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶38

Manoj/MM

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

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