Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Prashant Kumar Mishra and Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
KUNDAN SINGH THAKUR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 53 of 2018
Decided On : 30-01-2020
Devershi Thakur, Advocate, B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate, S.C. Verma, Advocate, Gagan Tiwari, Advocate, Vedant Belonde, Advocate, P.R. Patankar, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 & 6-A - Payment of salary - Transfer – Investigation - Brief and necessary facts of case as projected in writ petition are that society named as State Resource Centre manages Bank Account at State Bank of India New Raipur and Physical Referral Rehabilitation Centre SRC as Account State Bank of India - Petitioner and like persons at different PRRC throughout State are shown as Government employees and whopping amount towards their salary is withdrawn for purported payment of salary but neither petitioner nor any other like persons throughout State were ever salary for working with PRRC - Entire set up of SRC and PRRC is running only on papers without there being any visible tangible activity at any such center – Held, Court may further elucidate - Power order fresh de novo or reinvestigation being vested with the constitutional courts commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation - It can never be forgotten that as great ocean has only one test of salt so does justice has one flavour flavour of answering to distress of people without any discrimination – Court may hasten to add that democratic set-up has potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels truth uttered by poor man is seldom listened to - Not for nothing it has been that sun rises and sun sets light and darkness winter and spring come and go even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done - It is bounden duty of court of law to uphold truth and truth means absence of deceit absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a real and fair investigation not an investigation that reveals itself as sham one - It is not acceptable It has to be kept uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative - If there is indentation or concavity in investigation can the faith in investigation be regarded as gospel truth - Will it have the sanctity or purity of genuine investigation - If grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation should a constitutional court close its hands and accept proposition that as trial has commenced matter is beyond it - That is tour de force of prosecution and if court allow ourselves to say so it has become id e fixe but in our view imperium of constitutional courts cannot be stifled or smothered by bon mot or polemic –Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - This petition, initially filed as writ petition (Cr.) was later on converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under the orders of the Court, has been preferred seeking an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR (First Information Report) and investigate the matter; as also for a direction to the respondent No.2-Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, for initiating departmental proceedings against the respondents No.15 to 26 namely;
Shri Vivek Dhand
Shri M.K. Raut
Shri Alok Shukla
Shri Sunil Kujur
Shri B.L. Agrawal
Shri Satish Pandey
Shri P.P. Soti
Shri Rajesh Tiwari
Shri Ashok Tiwari
Shri Herman Khalkho
Shri M.L. Pandey
Shri Pankaj Verma
2. Albeit the then Hon'ble Minister of the concerned Department Smt. Renuka Singh has been arrayed as respondent No.14, but no relief has been prayed against her in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to conduct audit of the accounts maintained by the State Resource Center (for brevity 'the SRC') (jkT; Jksr fu%'kDr tu laLFkku), Samaj Kalyan Parisar, Mana, District Raipur; as also for recovery of the embezzled amount from the respondents No.15 to 26.
4. Brief and necessary facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that a society named as the State Resource Centre (SRC) manages Bank Account No.30790835402 at State Bank of India, New Raipur and the Physical Referral Rehabilitation Centre (for brevity 'the PRRC') under the said SRC as Account Nos.63006155111, 63000051762 & 31647505404 at State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, Raipur. The petitioner and like persons at different PRRC throughout the State are shown as the Government employees and whopping amount towards their salary is withdrawn for purported payment of salary, but neither the petitioner nor any other like persons throughout the State were ever paid salary for working with the PRRC. The entire set up of the SRC and PRRC is running only on papers without there being any visible tangible activity at any such center. There was no recruitment process through advertisement or otherwise nor any hospital for disabled is established nor any employees were ever appointed, but such persons are shown to be employed and working with the SRC/PRRC only for showing payment of salary to them. Despite the Bank Accounts of the employees throughout the State having been linked through their respective Aadhar Cards such fake employees are shown to be paid in cash, only on papers in a planned and organized manner just to siphon hundreds of crores of rupees. In course of arguments, Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the total embezzled amount would be more than Rs.630.00 crores.
5. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is shown in the list of employees who are paid in cash through the society as if the Government is not well equipped to transfer salary to its employees in their respective Bank Accounts. The petitioner is employed in Swawelamban Center and not in PRRC, however, he is shown to be working in the PRRC and the amount showed to be paid to the petitioner in cash for working in PRRC never reached him and was getting remuneration for working in Swawelamban Center. It is further stated that the SRC was registered in the year 2004 as a society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, but has never been audited since after its formation. The respondents No.15 to 26 against whom the relief has been prayed in the writ petition are the office bearers of the society.
6. According to the petitioner, PRRC was set up for working for the welfare of the disabled and handicapped persons and was supposed to make artificial limbs for them. In such PRRC employees were shown to be working and paid through the withdrawal authority namely; Shri Rajesh Tiwari (Respondent No.22). The SRC
