TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tender notices were not published in newspapers as required by the Central Public Works Department Manual. It was also alleged that some works were unnecessarily split without any valid justification, and the works were allotted to the same party or their cronies. The Department of Vigilance conducted an enquiry into the complaint and furnished a report dated 26th March 2013, which revealed that 19 Short Tender Notices enclosed in the complaint were never published in any newspaper. The works were quoted 4.8% to 14.95% above their estimated cost, and for most works, only two bidders had quoted bids, which clearly indicated that the Government did not get the benefit of competitive bidding and caused a loss to the Government. The report further revealed that the appellant was working as an Executive Engineer at the relevant division of the Public Works Department, Porvorim, from 21st October 2009 till the date of the enquiry report, i.e. 26th March 2013. The report noted that the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the allegations during enquiry, wherein he had submitted that the decision of not advertising the tenders costing up to Rs.10 Lakhs was approved by the the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. He also stated that he signed the documents placed before him without making any additions or edits. If any additions were required, he would generally write them himself. The charge sheet also alleged recovery of jewelry and cash of Rs.18,00,500/- from the appellant's bank locker. However, the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, which was initially included in the First Information Report, was dropped while filing the chargesheet, as there was no evidence. 5. The appellant's application for discharge under Sections 226 and 227 of the CrPC came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. Relying on the test laid Criminal Appeal No.5380 of 2024 Page 4 of 14 down by this Court in the cases of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Madjavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors (1998) 1 SCC 692, the Sessions Judge held that if the statements of the forensic expert and the PWD Minister are not controverted in the cross-examination, such evidence would be sufficient to convict the appellant. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to frame a charge for the offence punis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, one of the measures was to do away with the publication of tenders. In furtherance of this decision, 741 reports and 847 works, executed between 21st October 2009 and 24th November 2011, contained written instructions of the Public Works Department Minister of not publishing the tenders in newspapers. It was further contended that on the basis of a lack of evidence to prove forgery, the appellant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry proceedings by the Inquiring Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgements of this Court in the cases of Radhe Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581 and Ashoo Tiwari v. CBI (2020) 9 SCC 636 submitted that the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher than the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, which is based on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, since the appellant has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, on the same facts and allegations, criminal proceedings cannot be pursued. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, supported the impugned order and submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant is that after the Hon'ble Minister for the Public Works Department signed the note/report granting approval for issuing of tenders, above the signature of the Hon'ble Minister, the appellant inserted the following words: "approved to take short tender without publishing in newspaper and issue w/o". Further allegation against the appellant is that he committed forgery by inserting the aforesaid words with the object of showing that the addition was made by the Hon'ble Minister. There is an opinion of the Scientist of the CFSL that the inserted words were in the handwriting of the appellant. The allegation is that by not publishing tender notices, loss was caused to the Exchequer for two reasons: firstly, the revenue could have earned by the sale of the tender documents, and secondly, the revenue could have been benefited from getting competitive bids. 11. The appellant has been charged with the offences punishable under Section 468 of the IPC, which reads thus: "468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he - (i) 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; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income." 14. There is no allegation made in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other p....