Dilip S/O Deorao Pohekar vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar , ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5150 Bom

Bombay High Court

Dilip S/O Deorao Pohekar vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar , ... on 2 September, 2025

Judgment

                                                 457 revn53.20



                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

  CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2020

Dilip s/o Deorao Pohekar,
aged about 61 years, occupation retired,
r/o 24, Padole Layout, Ring Road,
Parsodi, Nagpur - 440 022.      ..... Applicant.

                     :: V E R S U S ::

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sadar, Nagpur.

2. Anti Corruption Bureau,
thorough its Police Inspector,
having its office at Administrative
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur.      ..... Non-applicants.

Shri R.R.Vyas, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Anant Ghongre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 08/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02/09/2025

JUDGMENT

.....2/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

1. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the

applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

Anant Ghongre for the State.

2. The present revision is filed by the applicant in

connection with Crime No.3309/2016 registered under

Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act and under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109

and 120-B of the IPC with the non-applicant/police against

rejection of discharge application vide Exh.108 in Special

ACB Case No.1/2018 dated 5.8.2019.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision are

as under:

The applicant was working as Superintending

Engineer in Water Resources Department. In the wake of

PIL No.83/2012 (Lok Nayak Bapuji Aney Samajsevi

Sanstha vs. State and ors) and PIL No.92/2012

.....3/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

(Janmanch vs. State and ors), the Government of

Maharashtra vide order No.ACB/0115/pra.kra.46/Pol-2

dated 18.2.2015 had ordered an open enquiry into the

allegations pertaining to irregularities in the irrigation

projects of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation

(the VIDC). Subsequently, the Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra, vide order

No.EO/16/Nagpur/2015-3961, dated 26.3.2015, had

directed the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nagpur to

conduct open enquiry into the allegations of corruption

made in respect of Gosikhurd Irrigation Project under the

VIDC Nagpur. It was alleged that the applicant was

working as Superintending Engineer and he was part of the

tendering process which was conducted for the allotment

of tender work of Tail Branch Canal under the Mokhabardi

Lift Irrigation Scheme in Gosikhurd National Irrigation

Project. The applicant has not acted in terms of the

.....4/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

Maharashtra Public Works Manual and he should have

taken necessary steps before allotment of tender by

evaluating the necessary requirements. It was alleged that

at the time of opening of the tender, Competent Authority

Mr.P.D.Matkar appeared as representative of S.N.Thakkar

Constructions Pvt.Ltd. and signed on the memorandum of

attendance which was deliberately ignored by the

applicant. It was further alleged that while scrutinizing the

pre-qualification form, the applicant changed the

conditions and relaxed the conditions from 40% to 60%

and thereby changed the terms in the per-qualification

form. While conducting scrutiny of the per-qualification

form, initially published word "and" is replaced by word

"or" and thereby allowed the tenderer company illegally as

successive bidder. The applicant has acted illegally by

ignoring interest of public at large and cheated the

Government and thereby committed misconduct while

.....5/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

working on the post of public servant. The failure on the

part of the applicant to conduct the tendering process

properly, resulted in the allotment of work order to a firm

which was not qualified as per the tender conditions of the

said work. Not only the applicant has not followed the

provisions of the Maharashtra Public Works Manual but

also he has helped the contractors M/s.R.J.shah and

Company Ltd. and D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd. (JV

Firm) by accepting the invalid certificates of previous

experience, which were required as 'prime contractors, but

were submitted by 'sub-contractors. The five of the

previous work experience certificates submitted by

M/s.D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd were of 'sub-

contractors". This particular aspect has been deliberately

neglected by the applicant with oblique motive while

preparing the evaluation sheet for causing the benefit to

the successful contractor J.V.Firm. During course of

.....6/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

investigation, it was revealed that the applicant had

favoured the successful contractors by way of illegally

updating the tender cost by the applicant during the

tendering process had illegally revised the estimated cost

of the tender from Rs.51.09 crores to Rs.53.88 crores and

thereby has caused illegal costs updation of Rs.2.79 crores.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

applicant has not contravened any of conditions for issuing

public notice by inviting tender taking sanction for the

same. There was no requirement for registration of joint

ventures in the Maharashtra State for contract. Technical

sanction has already been granted on 25.5.2019 for issuing

public notice inviting tenders. The applicant has not

contravened any condition while scrutinizing the tenders

submitted by the tenderer company and, therefore, no

case is made out for against the applicant as the applicant

.....7/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

is exonerated from the departmental enquiry. He further

submitted tender notice was published vide tender notice

No.1/2009-10 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ambhora

Lift Irrigation Division, Bhiwapur and was published in

newspaper. The tender notice was also published on the

official website of the VIDC and Irrigation Department of

the Government of Maharashtra. The estimated cost of

work was computed at Rs.51,09,57,984/-. The initial bid

submitted the joint venture (lowest )bidder) was for

Rs.63,09,82,000/- which was 23.49% above the

estimated cost of work. It was negotiated for a sum of

Rs.56,57,32,680/-. Initially, when the estimation of tender

was computed, the directives pertaining to labour

amenities were not taken into consideration. The said

omission was unintentional since the project was declared

as a National Project in the year 2008 when the estimate

for the work was under preparation. The bids which are

.....8/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

upto 5% above, the estimated tender cost/revised

estimated cost, are approved by a committee headed by

the Secretary of Water Resources Department,

Government of Maharashtra. The said committee

comprises of the Secretary, Water Resources Department,

Executive Director, VIDC and two Chief Engineers

including one under whose jurisdiction the work is to be

executed and the Superintending Engineer, VIDC, who is

the Principal Secretary of the Committee. Bids, which are

15% above the estimated/revised tender cost, are placed

before the Finance Committee headed by the Secretary,

Ministry of Finance, Government of Maharashtra. The

estimated tender cost should be updated and then placed

before the appropriate authority/committee for seeking

approval for allotment of work in favour of the lowest

tenderer. He further submitted that the Wadnere

Committee in its report observed that labour amenities

.....9/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

were wrongly taken into consideration. However, it does

not refer communication dated 9.5.2007 which directs

that the guidelines of Central Water Works Commission

should be followed and taken into consideration while

implementation of the project and, therefore, no case is

made out against the applicant. The State Government

has not suffered any monetary loss. The applicant has not

forged any documents. Thus, no prima facie case is made

out against the applicant and, therefore, order passed by

the trial court rejecting the discharge application deserves

to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State strongly opposed the application and submitted

that during the investigation of the crime it was revealed

that being the Superintending Engineer of the work under

Gosikhurd National Irrigation Project of the VIDC,

.....10/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

Nagpur, it was the duty of the applicant to conduct the

tendering process as per the norms prescribed in the

Maharashtra Public Works Manual. The applicant with an

intention to favour contractors M/s.R.J.shah and

Company Ltd. and D.Thakkar Construction Pvt.Ltd.

accepted the invalid certificates of previous experience.

This particular aspect of submitting incorrect certificates

was ignored by the applicant. The applicant has also

favoured the successful contractors by way of illegally

updating the tender cost by willfully adding the cost

relating to labour amenities to original tender costs. The

Expert Member Committee appointed by the Government

of Maharashtra has also given opinion that the applicant is

responsible for the above illegalities during the said

tendering process. The sub-contractor's certificates are not

valid as per the conditions in pre-qualification document as

it is required that the certificate should be of a prima-

.....11/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

contractor for qualification. The Wadnere Committee

appointed by the Government of Maharashtra had also

pointed out that the updation of tender cost by Rs.2.79

crores after publishing the tender notice on the count of

labour amenities was not regular. Therefore, the

chargesheet filed against the applicant is well founded.

The involvement of the applicant is in the serious offence.

The law on the issue as to what is to be considered of an

accused is well settled. The law on the issue as to what is

to be considered of an accused is well settled. The settled

position of law is that at the stage of framing charges, the

entire evidence produce by the prosecution is to be

believed.

6. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is

necessary to see considerations for considering the

application for discharge.

.....12/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

7. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of

considering an application for discharge, the court must

proceed on the assumption that the material which has

been brought on record by the prosecution is true and

evaluate the material in order to determine whether the

facts emerging from the material, taken on its face

value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary

of the offence alleged.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/

SC/1113 2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of

law in its earlier decisions in the cases of State of Tamil

Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported in (2014) 11

SCC 709 and The State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath

Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The State of

.....13/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338,

has held as under:

"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid down on this subject has held:

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the

.....14/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused

.....15/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."

9. Thus, at the stage of considering the application

for discharge, the defence of the accused is not to be

looked into. The expression "the record of the case" used

in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to

be understood as the documents and materials, if any,

produced by the prosecution. The provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any right to

the accused to produce any document at the stage of

framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is

.....16/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

to be confined to the material produced by the

investigating agency. The primary consideration at the

stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a

prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of

materials on record need not be gone into. At the stage

of entertaining the application for discharge under

Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court

cannot analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution

and defence or the points or possible cross examination

of the defence. The case of the prosecution is to be

accepted as it is.

10. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar

Samal and anr, reported in (1973)3 SCC 4, the Hon'ble

Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. After adverting to the

.....17/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

various decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

enumerated the following principles:

"(1) That the Judge while considering the

question of framing the charges under section

227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift

and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of

finding out whether or not a prima facie case

against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court

disclose grave suspicion against the accused

which has not been properly explained the Court

will be, fully justified in framing a charge and

proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case

would naturally depend upon the facts of each

case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of

.....18/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

universal application. By and large however if

two views are equally possible and the Judge is

satisfied that the evidence produced before him

while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave

suspicion against the accused, he will be fully

within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under

section 227 of the Code the Judge which under

the present Code is a senior and experienced

Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a

mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to

consider the broad probabilities of the case, the

total effect of the evidence and the documents

produced before the Court, any basic infirmities

appearing in the case and so on. This however

does not mean that the Judge should make a

.....19/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the

matter and weigh the evidence as if he was

conducting a trial."

11. In the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.)

vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors, reported in AIR

2023 SC 2480 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the

principles governing the application for discharge and

observed that law on issue as to what is to be considered

at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled.

Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material

produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the

stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie

case is made out against the accused persons. Interference

of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong

reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed,

the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

.....20/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

12. The discharge application is filed on the ground that

no case is made out against the applicant as no loss is

caused to the Government. Perusal of the investigation

papers reveals, as under:

a) prior to receiving a technical sanction from the

Chief Engineer, Gosikhurd Project, tender was

forwarded and tender notice was issued for the

publication;

b) proper entries about purchase of pre-

qualification form by the contractor are not

recorded nor a certificate annexed by the contractor

are duly verified;

c) during the scrutiny of pre-qualification form,

applicant committed forgery and used a word "or"

in place of "and" illegally and thereby assisted

contractor in sanctioning of tender illegally;

.....21/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

d) applicant was member of committee who has

wrongly recommended for updation of tender costs

and thereafter increased costs of tender;

e) successful tenderer company has not submitted a

registered document of partnership deed or joint

venture. However, after receiving a complaint

about illegal acceptance of the tender form, a

belated joint venture has submitted alleged joint

venture agreement, subsequently with the pre-

qualification;

f) Deed of Guarantee submitted by the successful

tenderer company was forged and in spite of having

knowledge thereof, no action was initiated against

it;

g) successful tenderer company has also submitted

a demand draft of EMD of the competitive

.....22/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

company, it is from its own account which was not

verified by the applicant; and

h) demand draft of EMD deposited by the

contractor during tender process were not

deposited in the account of VIDC and its entries

were not property noted.

13. Perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet reveals that

accusations made against the applicant are grave and

serious in nature. He has misused his position assisting the

successful bidder and thereby committed while performing

his duty as Superintending Engineer. It further shows that

the applicant illegally sanctioned updation and thereby

updated tender cost to the extent of Rs.51,09,57,984/- to

Rs.56,57,32,680/-.

14. The investigation papers further shows that the

applicant has favoured the successful contractors by way of

.....23/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

illegally updating the tender cost by willfully adding the

cost relating to labour amenities to original tender costs

and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.2.79 crores. The

applicant has also helped the contractors by accepting the

invalid certificates of previous experience. The opinion

collected during the investigation of The Expert Member

Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra

shows that the applicant is responsible for the above

illegalities during the said tendering process. The Wadnere

Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra

has also discloses involvement of the applicant in illegal

activities. The applicant has claimed that since the tender

has been cancelled, there is no financial loss to the State

Exchequer. However, the applicant has imposed liability of

the Government by way of illegal updation and he has

committed offence mentioned in the chargesheet.

.....24/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

15. The another ground raised in the applicant is that

the applicant is discharged from the departmental enquiry.

16. The charge framed in the departmental enquiry

against the applicant is reproduced, as under, for the

purpose of reference:

"Jh- fn- ns- ikgsdj] rRdkyhu vf/k{kd vfHk;ark gs xkslh[kqnZ milk flapu eaMG] vackMh ¼HkaMkjk½ ;sFks vf/k{kd vfHk;ark ;k inkoj ¼fn 17-05-2005 rs 3-9-2009½ dk;Zjr vlrkauk xkslh[kqnZ izdYikP;k cka/kdkekph vankti=ds r;kj djrkuk o fufonk fLod`rhlkBh v|;kor fdaer dk<rkauk fu;eckg; rjrqnh dsY;k- R;keqGs R;kaps dMwu drZO;kr dlwj o vfu;ferrk >kyh- R;k djhrk R;kaP;koj [kkyhy nks"kkjksi Bso.;kr ;sr vkgsr-

nks"kkjksi dzekad & 1 xkslh[kqnZ izdYikP;k cka/kdkekph vankti=ds r;kj djrkuk fu;eckg; rjrqnh dsY;keqGs cka/kdkekP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- rlsp eqG vankti=dkr T;k ckchapk varHkkZo vkgs- R;kO;frfjDr pqdhP;k ckch fufonsrhy dkekph v|;kor vankftr fdaer dk<rkuk varHkwZr dsY;k Eg.ktsp fufonsP;k v|;kor fdaerh pqdhP;k i/nrhus dk<Y;k- rlsp pqdhP;k i/nrhus dk<ysys fufonk vf/kD;kps izLrko ofj"B Lrjkoj lknj dsys-

.....25/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

R;keqGs fufonkaP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- ifj.kkeh izdYikP;k cka/kdkekP;k fderhr ok< >kyh- lnjP;k ok<ysY;k fderhl rs tckcnkj vkgsr-

Whereas, while conducting the investigation,

allegations levelled against the applicant are that at the

time of opening of tender, he allowed Competent

Authority Mr.P.D.Matkar appeared as representative of

S.N.Thakkar Constructions Pvt.Ltd. and signed on the

memorandum of attendance. While scrutinizing the pre-

qualification form, the applicant changed the conditions

and relaxed the conditions from 40% to 60% and thereby

changed the terms in the pre-qualification form. The

applicant has also committed forgery while conducting

scrutiny of the pre-qualification form, initially published

word "and" is replaced by word "or" and thereby allowed

the tenderer company illegally as successive bidder.

.....26/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

17. Thus, the applicant has acted against public at

large and caused loss to the Government by misusing his

official position and helped the tenderer illegally. The act

of the applicant covers under Section 13(1)(d) of the P..C.

Act which states that (i) if a public servant by corrupt or

illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person

any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by

abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself

or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant,

obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage without any public interest.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

as the applicant is already exonerated from the

departmental enquiry on the same charges, he cannot be

prosecuted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

.....27/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

for the applicant placed reliance on the decision in the case

of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent

of Police, EOW, CBI and anr, reported in (2020)9 SCC 636

which also shows that after referring the various

judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out the ratio

of those decisions by referring its earlier judgment and

observations in para No.38 in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs.

State of West Bengal, reported in (2011)3 SCC 581, which

are reproduced as follows:

"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :-

(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

.....28/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

(iii)Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other;

(iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

.....29/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can not be allowed to continue underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases".

The Hon'ble Apex Court finally concluded that in

our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as

to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings

as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and

the exoneration of the person concerned in the

adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found

on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of

the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the

person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the

court.

.....30/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

19. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

standard of proof is much higher than that of adjudicating

proceeding. The authority has not been able to prove in

the adjudicating proceeding and the applicant has been

exonerated on the same allegations and, therefore, the

applicant has to be discharged from the charges.

20. This aspect is also dealt with by the the Three-

Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of N.C.T. of Delhi vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685

wherein it is observed that, "We have given our anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced and in order to

decipher the true ratio of the case, we have read the

judgment relied on very closely. In this case, the allegations

against the delinquent employee in the departmental

proceeding and criminal case were one and the same, that

is, possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources

.....31/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

of income. The Central Bureau of Investigation, the

prosecutor to assess the value of the assets relied on the

valuation report given later on.

It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by

referring the earlier judgment P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar,

reported in AIR OnLine 1996 SC 54 that the said decision,

therefore, does not lay down any proposition that on

exoneration of an employee in the departmental

proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the identical

charge or the evidence has to be quashed. It is well settled

that the decision is an authority for what it actually

decides and not what flows from it. Mere fact that in said

case, this Court quashed the prosecution when the

accused was exonerated in the departmental proceeding

would not mean that it was quashed on that ground. It is

further held that, we are, therefore, of the opinion that

.....32/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto

would not result into the quashing of the criminal

prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the

prosecution against an accused is solely based on a

finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the

superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation

goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that

principle will not apply in the case of the departmental

proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental

proceeding are held by two different entities.

21. Perusal of the charges in the departmental

enquiry and allegations levelled in the present crime,

admittedly, shows that the same are not identical. Perusal

of the material on record shows that there is no dispute

the applicant was working as the Chief Engineer from

30.1.2016 and retire don 30.9.2016. Prior to that, he was

.....33/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

working as Superintending Engineer. The allegations in

the departmental enquiry are to the extent illegalities and

irregularities are committed by him while carrying out

tendering process. On the contrary, charges levelled

during the investigation, that besides the illegalities and

irregularities, while carrying out tendering process, the

applicant, by misusing his position, committed forgery in

tendered document by removing "and " and inserting "or"

only to give advantage to the contractor. He also

accepted incorrect certificate from the contractor on the

basis of which the contractor has to be disqualified, but he

was declared as qualified. Thus, the applicant has played

active role during the aforesaid process. He has also

acted against the rules and provisions of Public Works

Manual and increased the tender and caused the loss to

the Government. The committee is appointed in view of

the directions of this court in PIL No.83/2012 and PIL

.....34/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

No.92/2012 conducted the enquiry. The applicant was

working as Superintending Engineer and he was part of the

tendering process which was conducted for the allotment

of tender work of Tail Branch Canal under the Mokhabardi

Lift Irrigation Scheme in Gosikhurd National Irrigation

Project. During the enquiry, it was revealed that being

Superintending Engineer it was the duty to conduct

tendering process as per the provisions of the Maharashtra

Public Works Manual. The applicant has helped

contractors by accepting the invalid certificates of previous

experience. The applicant had favoured the successful

contractors by way of illegally updating the tender cost by

willfully adding the cost relating to labour amenities to

original tender costs. The evidence further shows that the

Wadnere Committee appointed by the Government of

Maharashtra had also pointed out that the updation of

.....35/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

tender cost by Rs.2.79 crores after publishing the tender

notice on the count of labour amenities was not regular.

22. Thus, the allegations against the applicant in the

chargesheet are well founded.

23. Thus, after having sifted and weighed the

evidence on record collected during investigation, it shows

involvement of the applicant in serious offence. Mere

exoneration of the applicant in the departmental enquiry is

not sufficient to discharge him. The settled proposition

of law is that at the stage of framing of the charges

entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be

believed. In case no offence is made out then only

an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness,

sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced

can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of

.....36/-

Judgment

457 revn53.20

charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case

is made out against the accused persons.

24. In the light of the above facts and

circumstances, learned Judge below has rightly

rejected the application. The position of law has been

applied correctly to the facts of the present matter to

arrive at the conclusion that there is no substance in

application for discharge. As such, as no other view can

be taken, the revision being devoid of merits is liable to be

dismissed and the same is dismissed.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 04/09/2025 16:30:43