HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHIVDAYAL & G.P. SINGH, JJ.
Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava
Versus
State of M.P. & another
M.P. No. 151 of 1973
Decided On: 14.4.1976
(2) Constitution of India – Article 311(2)–particular charge not leveled against a Government Servant–he cannot be held guilty for it.
In the instant case neither the charges nor the statements accompanying the charges show that the Government intended to make the petitioner liable for endorsing certificates on the ground that the goods were purchased without inviting tenders in respect or the second order of five lac meters. It was, therefore, not open to the Enquiry Officer to hold the petitioner liable on the ground that no tenders were invited for the second order and therefore, the certificates were false.
(Para 8)
(3) Financial Code – Rule 2 & 14–calling of tenders–may be dispensed with.
The observance of Rule 2, contained in Appendix 5 of the Financial Code, which requires that tenders shall be invited for purchase of articles, can be dispensed with by the Government in exercise of its power under Rule 14, which authorises the Government to sanction departure from the rules in cases in which departure is in the public interest.
(Para 8)
(4) Treasury Code – Rule 397–certificate on bills–when need not be based on personal knowledge.
It is to be noted that certificates that goods have been received, required by the first part of rule 397 of the Treasury Code had been endorsed on the bills by other officers and not by the petitioner. The certificates of the nature endorsed by the petitioner come under the second part of rule 397. The rule does not provide that certificates required under the second part should be furnished by the drawing officer only after gathering personal knowledge that the goods have been received. In the absence of any such requirement it is clearly an apparent error of law to hold that the petitioner should have endorsed the certificates only on the basis of personal knowledge and not on the basis of information received by him from the note of the D.P.I.
(Para 9)
G.P. SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the State Government dated 9.1.1973 by which he has been reverted from the post of Professor Class I to the post of Assistant Professor Class II. In 1967-68 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director of Public Instructions. School matting of the value of about Rupees sixteen lacs was purchased by the Education Department through the Director, Public Instructions in that year from M/s Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad. There were many irregularities in the purchase of school matting. The State Government framed a number of charges against M.H. Rao, Secretary, Education Department. B.L. Vijayvargiya, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Smt. F. Choudhary, Director of Public Instructions, B.L. Goyal, Divisional Superintendent of Education, Bhopal and the petitioner. The inquiry against these officers was entrusted to Shri V.R. Newaskar, a retired Judge of the High Court, who was authorised to hold a joint inquiry on the charges against these officer. Later on the inquiry against M.H. Rao and B.L. Vijayvargiya was separated as Rao happened to be an I.A.S., officer and was governed by different rules. In the joint inquiry against Smt. F. Choudhary, B.L. Goyal and the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that certain charges were proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Government. After issuing the requisite show cause notice and after obtaining the advice of the Public Service Commission, the Government passed the impugned order reverting the petitioner.
2. To understand the nature of the charges and the controversy in this petition, it is necessary to State certain facts. Out of the expected saving in the budget for the financial year 1967-68, the State Government sanctioned a sum of Rupees twenty lacs for the purchase of school matting, black-boards buckets etc. Out of this amount, Rs. 3.2, lacs were allotted to Tribal Welfare Department and Rs. 16.80 lacs to the Education Department. The proposal for the sanction of this amount was made towards the end of the year 1967, but the actual sanction by the Government was made on 13th February 1968. This sanction was slightly revised on 6th March 1968. The purchase was directed to be made in accordance with the Store Purchase Rules. It appears that the bulk of the amount sanctioned was to be utilised for the purchase of school matting. In anticipation of the sanction of the Government, a Central Purchase Committee was constituted for making purchases. This committee consisted of three members, viz., the Education Secretary or his nominee, the Finance Secretary or his nominee and the Director of Public Instructions. A tender notice dated 1st February 1968 was issued as directed by the D.P.I., inviting tenders for 6½ lac meters of school matting. These tenders were opened and scrutinized on 16th February 1968. The Purchase Committee approved the sample and rate (Rs. 1.35 per meter) of M/s Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad and their tender was accepted. Further, on the suggestion of the D.P.I., the following decision was also taken:–
"In view of the urgent requirements of Tat-Patti for schools and lack of time at our disposal, it is proposed by the Director of public Instruction that maximum utilization of the allotment available can be ensured if the time likely to be consumed in transportation of Tat-Pattis to the 9 Divisional Head–quarters is saved by allowing a senior officer of the department to reach the factory godown of the firm, check the material with the help of the sample before it is despatched, take possession of the supply and get it despatched to the 9 Educational Divisions provided that the firm bears the extra cost of transport and expenses of delivery at the 9 Educational Stores as per conditions of the tender. This will meet the usual audit objection against making payments before taking possession of the
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.