Back
The has an order directing into alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Sehaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (SAUBHAGYA) scheme, agreeing with the 's that no criminal case was made out against four officials of the .
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani allowed filed under , the order dated of the , which had rejected the 's final in FIR No. 4 of 2020. The court observed that the investigation, subsequent , and government-ordered had collectively exonerated the petitioners from allegations of or .
The ruling affects Manhar Gupta, Asgar Hussain, Tasaduq Hussain Sheikh, and Umesh Parihar, who had been named in connection with alleged during the execution of the SAUBHAGYA scheme in District Doda and other areas of Jammu division. The investigations had found no criminality but recommended for violating scheme guidelines.
Scheme and Allegations
The SAUBHAGYA scheme, launched by the , aimed to achieve universal household electrification by providing last-mile connectivity and connections to un-electrified households across rural and urban Jammu & Kashmir. was the nodal agency, and beneficiaries were identified through the 2011 Socio Economic Caste Census. The scheme was completed in March 2019, with J&K receiving a ₹100 crore cash award for being the first special category State to achieve 100% household electrification.
Following a into alleged irregularities, the registered two FIRs on —FIR No. 3 of 2020 at Police Station Srinagar concerning Ganderbal district, and FIR No. 4 of 2020 at Police Station Jammu concerning District Doda. The investigation was later extended to other districts. Both units eventually filed before their respective Special Courts.
In the Doda case, the investigating officer concluded that the allegations were "" against the four petitioners, though it found that certain officers had committed by not following the SAUBHAGYA guidelines. The officer recommended against 17 named public servants, including the petitioners.
Special Court's Order
While the
accepted the
in FIR No. 3 of 2020 on
, the Special Judge at Jammu rejected the
in FIR No. 4 of 2020 on
, directing
. The High Court found that this order bore
"the apparent trappings of a
,"
noting that the Special Court had referred to the agencies involved as criminally liable for
, use of
, and
.
The High Court observed that the Special Court
"appears not to have been fully updated of the series of events that occurred with effect from
,"
the date when the
was filed. During the pendency of the
, the Government had conducted
and the
had carried out
.
and Inspections
Pursuant to the
's recommendation, the
initiated
proceedings. On
, the
issued Government Order No. 78-JK(PDD) of 2024, which concluded that
"there is no material evidence that proves
on the part of any officer/official associated with the implementation of Saubhagya scheme"
and that
"the omissions and commissions pointed out by the
have been satisfactorily explained by both the MDs in their respective reports after detailed verification."
The order further recorded that the
had conducted
of works executed under the scheme, which were uploaded on the SAKSHYA portal and showed
"no deficiency in the execution of works,"
substantiating that the works were executed satisfactorily as per the Detailed Project Reports. The closure statements for all districts had been audited, certified by the Chartered Accountant, and accepted by the
.
Court's Findings
The High Court noted that the were concerning the same set of allegations, and while the Srinagar court accepted the , the Jammu court did not. The court examined the and found that the allegations of "" raised by the Special Judge had already been addressed during the investigation.
"The investigation conducted by the
Jammu
, culminating in the filing of the
… followed by the
conducted by the Government,
, and the simultaneous third-party inspection/audit of the works executed under the Saubhagya Scheme… exonerates the petitioners from the accusation of commission of
or any
,"
Justice Wani observed.
The court also noted that the petitioners had already faced a
,
,
, and
.
"The present petitioners have already suffered the brunt of the investigation, which commenced in Case FIR w.e.f.
… Even after the conclusion of the investigation, which culminated in a finding of '
', they were again associated with proceedings during the
as well as the
-ordered inspections and audits,"
the judge observed.
Consequently, the High Court
the
to the extent of the four petitioners and agreed with the
. However, the court clarified that its order
"shall not be construed as granting of any permission for release of any amounts in relation to the execution of the scheme,"
and that any such release would be regulated by the applicable law and any subsequent orders from the
or the
.
The were disposed of accordingly, bringing an end to the against the officials while preserving the government's discretion on administrative and financial matters.
