Charge not filed-whether fir can be quashed under pc act sec.7
gopinathan
(Querist) 09 December 2015
This query is : Resolved
A PWD Drawing officer joined in a new station on 29/6/2015.A contractor furnished a work bill and M.Book dated 22/6/2015 for payment of 549000/- on 12/8/2015(51 days by late). The DO verified online and found that the bill was paid and shown expenditure as Rs.550000/- through Vr.No.29/5/2015.(In this date he was in some other station). The DO refused to make payment to the contractor in the present date.(12/8/2015) But actually payment was not made as per cash book wherein online shows contra. In this situation Contractor complained against DO for illegal gratification and DVAC trapped the DO on 20/8/2015 then imprisoned and suspended.
Actually the original bill and M.Book were lost by the predecessor. With a malafide intention hide all these facts, Engineer prepared another M.Book and bill which were contra to online data(based on this authenticated data and discrepancies of the duplicate bill and M.Book, the DO refused to sanction the bill)
Investigation is under process. Charge sheet not filed. In this circumstances the DO wants to quash FIR u/s 7 of PC ACT and seeks for departmental inquiry. Will it be possible?
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 09 December 2015
When the DO has refused to make the payment as per the present date,how can illegal gratification come into picture? U are not clear here.Then we will discuss about section 7 of the PC ACT 1988.
P. Venu
(Expert) 09 December 2015
You have not disclosed the material facts.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 09 December 2015
Whether any departmental inquiry was held after charge sheet?
Whether any red handed illegal gratification was caught?
gopinathan
(Querist) 09 December 2015
Mr.Rajendra sir,
yes. the contractor forcibly shook DO hand when he refused money. DO not touched the currency. He put 3000 in a cover and kept on table.result positive.
P. Venu
(Expert) 09 December 2015
The charges needs to be met on merits. Other aspects mentioned in the query are not material.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 13 December 2015
The positive result of the test shows that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. Thus there is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and the voluntary acceptance thereof.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 18 December 2015
A lot of meaning can be inferred in this. Firstly the DO may be really innocent of the offence and he has been trapped intelligently to wreak vengeance on him. Or may be the DO really was involved in the graft issue.
Now quashing of graft case is different to that of the situation in the office about the duplicate M Bill book issue.
The Drawing officer should decide about the merits in his side before filing a quash petition against the graft case.
