TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Centre - HELD THAT:- The order under review on satisfaction that the matter needs to be investigated by an independent agency. In fact, the matter was reffered to the CBI for the reason that the SRC was manned by officers at the level of the Chief Secretary and despite direction by the PIL Court the matter was not properly examined and effective action was not taken by the State authorities. There is no error apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction to review recall the order - both the review petitions, sans substratum, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. - REVP No. 43 of 2020, REVP No. 49 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA AND HON'BLE SHRI PARTH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be working at the Physical Referral Rehabilitation Centre (for short the PRRC ). It was alleged that the PRRC is running only on papers without there being any visible tangible activity. Employees were shown to be working, but no recruitment process through advertisement or otherwise was ever drawn nor any hospital for disabled is established, nor any employees were ever appointed. 4. In course of hearing of the writ petition, the PIL Court passed the following order on 30-7-2018 : Heard. Respondent No.4 The Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh will hold an independent enquiry into the allegations made in this writ petition. If what has been stated therein are true and correct then it is a serious issue, which require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict Rehabilitation Officer, Social Welfare Department, Bilaspur. 7. Show cause notices issued to the employees namely; Rajesh Tiwari, Pankaj Verma, Herman Khalkho Anil Soumitra were also part of the affidavit of Smt. Chameli Chandrakar. Additional affidavit was filed by Smt. Chameli Chandrakar on 13-3-2019. 8. Based on the allegation made in the Writ Petition (PIL) and the report submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh and the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the case this Court found, prima facie, substance in the allegations concerning misappropriation and siphoning of public funds. Since after issuance of show cause notices to four officers the State did nothing to unearth the financial irregularity to ascert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has thereafter retired in 2017. Thus, the allegations against him are wholly unfounded. 13. To buttress their contentions, learned counsel for the applicants would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others v Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680, Sakiri Vasu v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 2 SCC 409, Divine Retreat Centre v State of Kerala and Others (2008) 3 SCC 542, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and Another (2009) 2 SCC 363, Ms Mayawati v Union of India and Others (2012) 8 SCC 106, Union of India v Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and Others (2013) 8 SCC 337, Anil Kumar and Others v M.K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) 10 SCC 705, L. Narayana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords from the concerned department, organization and offices throughout the State within 15 days from the date of registration of FIR. c) The CBI shall make all possible endeavour to complete fair and independent investigation at the earliest. d) It is made clear that in the event the CBI needs any further direction from this Court it would be at liberty to move necessary application in this regard. 16. The review petitions seem to have been filed on apprehension that since the applicants herein are arrayed as respondents in the WP (PIL) an FIR may be instantaneously registered against them, however, our order on this aspect is very clear and no further clarification is required in this regard. 17. It is the settled proposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d provision would be attracted only when their act is found to be relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. 21. Amassing wealth by misappropriation or embezzlement is never considered to be in discharge of official duties. The provision (Section 17A of the PC Act) has been inserted only to provide protection to officers/public servants who discharge their official functions and/or duties with diligence, fairly, in an unbiased manner and to the best of their ability and judgment, however, it does not seek to protect any person who is involved in garnishing wealth by corrupt means. The decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on this issue in Devender Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
