Birajit Sinha vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

The petitioner, by means of this pro bono petition has brought to the notice of this court that a huge amount of money under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, in short 'MGNREGA' and the Panchayet Development Fund, has been misappropriated by the Government officials. According to the petitioner, in an orchestrated manner a sum of Rs.1 crore in the financial year 2014-15 has been siphoned out.

The petitioner filed a written complaint against the persons involved in the said misappropriation of fund including the concerned BDO, Gram Pradhan and Panchayet Secretary [the implementing officers]. But no action whatsoever has been taken on his complaint and hence he has approached this court for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the complaint, the petitioner has given the details of the sanction memo of MGNREGA and the statements relating to the cross- verification from the beneficiaries. In that course, it had surfaced that there was misappropriation of the huge Government fund.

On receipt of the complaint, Irani P.S. Case No.29/2015 under Sections 120B/409 of the IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered. From the Office Order dated 08.11.2015 it would be apparent that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kailashahar has been entrusted to investigate the said case under the supervision of the Additional Superintendent of Police.

Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is hardly any progress in the investigation. Even the substantial part of the financial irregularities, those have been referred in the written complaint has not been properly scrutinised by the said Investigating Officer. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has expressed his dismay that if in such pace the investigation advances, it would only end in a travesty of justice. According to Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel, deliberately the progress of the investigation is being slowed so that the kingpins can be saved from the clutch of law.

The Investigating Officer has appeared in person and has stated that the substantial part of the financial irregularities are still left without any scrutiny.

The State-respondents by filing their counter affidavit have stated that in addition to the criminal investigation, the disciplinary proceeding has been launched against one of the accused persons, namely Md. Hussain Uddin on the charge of misappropriation of fund and for holding disproportionate property in comparison to his known source of income. The respondents have further stated that no further direction is required on the alleged irregularities as this court by its judgment dated 16.11.2016 delivered in W.P.(C)(PIL) No.16/2014 and W.P.(C)(PIL) No.17/2014, has directed the State Government to conduct audit of all Blocks within 8(eight) months. The allegations made in this petition shall also be audited in terms of the said order.

This court is completely dissatisfied with this kind of reply.

From the nature of the allegations, this court is prima facie satisfied that the efficient investigation into the complaint is required. Normally, this court does not interfere with the investigation if it is found that the investigation is progressing effectively and the Investigating Officers are not leaving any trail followed and they are verifying the records with urgency so that the best evidence can be collected as early as possible. Such investigation can never be questioned.

This court while dismissing the prayer for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the ground that except the slow pace of investigation and attributable motives, no material has surfaced before this court to issue the direction for withdrawal of the investigation from the present investigating agency. When this court was deliberating with Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, how to accelerate the pace of the investigation and to deal effectively with the materials those have already surfaced and suggested that if a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is constituted, whether the State would have any objection? The learned Advocate General has clearly stated that the State will have no objection if the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is formed to investigate the Irani P.S. Case No.29/2015 under Sections 120B/409 of the IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel has immediately accepted the idea of forming of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) for investigating the said case.

Hence the Director General of Police, Tripura, is directed to constitute a 3(three) member Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising one officer from the level of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) as the head, with the Superintendent of Police, Unakoti District, Kailashahar and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kailashahar, the present Investigating Officer. The said Special Investigation Team (SIT) shall be constituted by the Director General of Police within 1(one) month from the date when he would receive the copy of this order. The Director General of Police shall further ask the SIT to submit the report on completing the investigation within a period of 6(six) months from the date of notification constituting the Special Investigation Team (SIT). A copy of the report as would be submitted by the SIT be supplied to the petitioner and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach this court.

This pro bono writ petition is thus disposed of.