The Chhattisgarh High Court held that it cannot direct a roving or fishing inquiry and more so when only general and bald allegations have been made without substantiating the allegations with supporting documents/materials.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the so-called embezzlement of government fund to the tune of Rs. 476.72 lacs and seeks direction to the respondent authorities to initiate recovery proceedings and register FIR under Section 403, 405, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against culprits.
As per the pleadings made in the petition, his information with regard to embezzlement is based on the question raised by a Member of Legislative Assembly. The said embezzlement is said to have been done with regard to construction work of culverts and stop dam during 2019-20 and 2020-21 under the MNREGA scheme in Gaurela Forest Area of Marwahi Forest Division. On 21.03.2022, it was announced in the House that 15 officers and employees would be placed under suspension and in compliance of which the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle and Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi were suspended along with 12 other officers and employees, though they were reinstated after 45 days. In the debate in the Vidhan Sabha on 21.03.2022, it was also announced that FIR would be registered against the culprits and the embezzled funds would be recovered from them.
Praveen Soni , counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after making various applications to the respondent authorities and after making verbal prayers, the concerned authorities have not taken any action against the culprits. He further submitted that the entire embezzlement has been done in respect of 33 construction works. The District Administration of Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi had banned the issuance of muster rolls for these 33 works till the completion of the investigation/enquiry. However, the incomplete works were completed secretly during the ban period and the suspended employees were illegally reinstated by respondent No. 8 (The DFO, Marwahi Division) .
On the other hand, Pradhan, Raghavendra Pradhan, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/Respondents submitted that departmental enquiry has already been contemplated against 12 delinquent officials of the Department and charge-sheet have also been issued. As soon as the enquiry is completed, appropriate action will be taken against them. So far as the construction work is concerned, all the 33 construction works which included 17 number of culverts and 16 number of stop dams have already been completed. Accordingly, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication and the present petition deserves to be dismissed summarily.
On perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, the Court observed that the entire petition is a sketchy one. The pleadings are neither clear nor specific.
Even the basis of the pleadings are merely the statements made by the Member of Legislative Assembly inside the Assembly and newspaper reports. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any specific instance so as to call for interference by this Court.
The pleadings are vague and general and so are the reliefs prayed for and in absence of the same, no specific direction/orders/writ can be issued to the respondent authorities. The return and the affidavit of the respondents are self-explanatory and the grievance raised herein appears to have been redressed. The petitioner has prayed that FIR may be lodged against the culprits, but who are the culprits is not disclosed.
“While entertaining a PIL petition, it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations”, observed by the High Court.