Niraj Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Yadav, apprehended arrest in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.118 of 2020. An inquiry revealed a fraudulent transaction concerning the purchase of PPE Kits at an inflated price. The purchase committee, headed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, initially fixed the rate at Rs. 1050 per PPE Kit. Later, the Mission Director of National Health Mission, Jharkhand, fixed the rate at Rs. 735 including GST. Image India was authorized to supply PPE Kits through M/s. Aarushi Enterprises, which supplied 1000 kits and received payment. The petitioner, a District Programme Officer, argued that the inquiry committee's finding of an excess charge of Rs. 350 per PPE Kit, causing a loss of Rs. 3,15,000, was baseless. He contended that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer was primarily responsible for fixing the higher rate, receiving the kits, and making payments, and that the petitioner was made an accused to shield the former. The petitioner's service was terminated due to these allegations.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not primarily responsible for purchasing PPE Kits at a higher price than what was fixed by the Mission Director of National Health Mission, Jharkhand. The Court noted that the purchase committee had indeed fixed the price of PPE Kits at Rs. 1050 per kit, and based on this, Image India authorized M/s. Aarushi Enterprises to supply the kits. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer received the kits and made payments to M/s. Aarushi Enterprises. Therefore, the Court found that it could not be said that the petitioner was primarily responsible for the higher price. The Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks and be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is primarily responsible for the alleged excess payment for PPE Kits, considering the roles of other authorities involved in the procurement process? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of vicarious liability and procurement procedures). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer was the authority responsible for fixing the higher rate, receiving the PPE Kits, and authorizing payments. He contended that he was falsely implicated to protect the Civil Surgeon. He relied on the fact that the purchase committee initially fixed the rate at Rs. 1050 and that the subsequent fixation of Rs. 735 by the Mission Director was a later development. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, implying the State believed the petitioner had a role in the alleged fraudulent transaction.