Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by: Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
CLOR No.8/2024
State v Closure Report
FIR No.19/2023
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
23.09.2024
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. PP for State.
IO is not present.
1. This is a closure report.
2. The investigating officer has not appeared to make submissions. Naib Court
submits that he has received telephonic information from the investigating
officer that the investigating officer cannot appear today as he is appearing
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in some other case.
3. I have gone through the closure report.
4. Since the investigating officer has stated in the closure report that 35
invoices do not pertain to MIA Construction Ltd., the investigating officer is
required to explain as to whether the said invoices are fabricated or have
been used by MIA Construction Ltd. or have been wrongly represented by
MIA Construction Ltd. to be of its own which may have persuaded the Public
Works Department (PWD) to release funds and whether the said acts would
amount to the offence of cheating.
5. The Anti-Corruption Branch is also directed to conduct an inquiry and to
identify the Investigating Officer who was responsible for sending the letter of
verification to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. belatedly due to which the invoices
1
-- 1 of 4 --
could not be verified since as per reply received from Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., the retention period was only five years.
6. It is also not understood as to why the purchase bills/invoices of material
were not available in the office of Public Works Department (PWD) as stated
in the charge-sheet.
7. To ascertain whether the investigating officer has made a comprehensive
and correct investigation and has come to the right conclusion, it is
appropriate to obtain some preliminary information from Public Works
Department. The Principal Secretary of Public Works Department (PWD) is
directed to provide the following information:
a) Whether as per practice and as per
instructions/norms, submission of invoices is insisted
upon by PWD before release of funds?
b) Whether in this case the said invoices had been
received and if so, why the same are not available in
the said office?
c) In case the said invoices had been received and
have gone missing, whether any FIR was got
registered regarding the removal or destruction/theft
of documents and whether any fact-finding inquiry
has been conducted in this behalf to identify the
custodian of the said documents, who was
responsible for the documents going missing and
whether any departmental inquiry has been
conducted in this behalf?
d) Whether any departmental inquiry or other internal
inquiry has been conducted in respect of the
allegations of fraudulent release of funds despite the
material not having been procured and the work not
2
-- 2 of 4 --
having been done? If so, copy of the report of inquiry
be submitted to this Court?
e) Whether the road in question was inspected during
the defect liability period and was any defect noticed
at that time? Whether there are any norms requiring
inspection of works after completion and during the
defect liability period?
f) Whether the contractor had furnished test
certificates issued by manufacturer in respect of
bitumen procured by him and whether any sample
was collected for testing, in terms of clause 4 of the
“Conditions for Procurement and Accounting of
Bitumen”?
g) Whether samples of materials and other articles
used in execution of the work was got approved from
the Engineer-in-charge as per clause 2.0 of general
conditions which is part of the contract executed with
the contractor?
h) Was a register of tests being maintained and
whether samples were tested in terms of the said
general conditions?
i) Was day to day receipt and accounts of bitumen
being issued and maintained by the Junior Engineer-
in-charge as per the prescribed proforma in terms of
clause 2.5 of the “Conditions for Procurement and
Accounting of Bitumen”?
j) Under the head of the same tender, was additional
work which was beyond the scope of the initial
tender given to the contractor?
3
-- 3 of 4 --
k) Were the invoice of materials procured by the
contractor conforming to the list of approved
manufacturers/suppliers?
l) Whether the road stretch which is the subject matter
of this case - Road No.43 (Guru Harikishan Marg)
from Britania Chowk of Outer Ring Road at West
Enclave, has been got repaired or laid afresh
between year 2014 and 06.04.2018 except in
implementation of the contract which is the subject
matter of this case?
m) Whether field testing was done by the department on
receipt of the complaint and if not, the reasons
therefor?
8. Let the said information be provided by the next date. While providing the
aforesaid information, the Principal Secretary shall ensure accuracy instead
of forwarding the information collated by the Executive Engineer or other
employees without verification.
9. Let notice be issued to the complainant/informant Rahul Sharma, to the Joint
Commissioner of Anti-Corruption Branch and to the Principal Secretary,
PWD with copy of this order returnable on 22.11.2024.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
23.09.2024
4
-- 4 of 4 --