Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 1 of 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (PIL) No. 809 of 2022

Pankaj Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, Son of Raj Kishore Pd.

Yadav, Resident of – Gayatri Nagar, Sudna, Post Office- Sudna, Police

Station- Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand.

... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,

P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, F.F.P.

Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. The In-Charge Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Development Department,

Jharkhand, F.F.P. Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,

Jharkhand.

5. Birendra Ram, In-Charge Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Development

Department, Jharkhand, F.F.P. Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,

District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6. The Commissioner, Income Tax Investigation Department, Central

Revenue Building. 5A, Mahatma Gandhi Main Road, Ranchi, P.O.-

G.P.O., P.S.- Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

7. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, 1

st

& 2

nd

Floor, MTNL

Building, Jawaharlal Nehru, Stadium Marg, P.O. & P.S.- Stadium

Marg, District- New Delhi- 110002.

... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner: Mr Rajeev Kumar, Advocate

Mrs Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate

For the State: Mr Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G.

For the ITD: Mr Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C.

Mr Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate

For the ED: Mr Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate

Mr Saurav Kumar, Advocate

---------

Reserved on: 01.10.2026 Pronounced on: 14/10/2026

Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 2 of 18

1. Heard Mr Rajeev Kumar, who appears with Mrs Niteshwari

Kumari for the petitioner, Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C. to

A.G., for respondents Nos. 1 to 5; Mr Kumar Vaibhav, learned Sr.

Standing Counsel for the 6

th

respondent; and Mr Amit Kumar Das,

learned Senior Advocate for the 7

th

respondent.

2. This petitioner, by way of purported public interest, seeks the

following reliefs: -

A. For the direction upon the respondents to enquire &

investigate the reasons for collapse of bridges

SN Bridges Rivers Total

Amounts

(a) District of Dhanbad Nirsa Barakar River 35 Crore

(b) District of Khunti Karra

Bridge

Tajna River 2.15 Crore

(c) District of Palamau

Daltonganj

Koyal River 4.25 Crore

(d) District of Gumla

(i) Kedeng-Jairagi Path Sankh River 1.84 Crore

(ii) Bhikhampur Jari Path Lava River 1.18 Crore

(iii) Basia Jola Ghat South Koyal

River

5.65 Crore

(iv) Bishunpur Chainpur Path North Koyal

River

1.35 Crore

(v) Bishunpur Samdari Path North Koyal

River

1.57 Crore

(vi) Kamdara Bano Path South Koyal

River

2.91 Crore

in different part of the State of Jharkhand

which is evident from audit report of Principal

Accountant General of the State of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 3 of 18

At that point of time Birendra Ram was the Chief

Engineer of Special Division and on his admission, the

bridges collapsed during the period he was Chief

Engineer Special Division.

B. For the direction upon the respondents to call for a

report from the respondent no. 2 & 3 as to why action

has not been initiated against the top most bosses of

Rural Development Department where bridges have

collapsed & action has not been taken although office

of Principal Accountant Ranchi has submitted a report

& it has widely mentioned the cause of collapse of

bridges.

C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 6 & 7 to

initiate investigation against respondents no. 5 Birendra

Ram Chief Engineer Rural Development Department.

Now In-Charge Engineer in Chief Rural Development

Department.

D. For the direction upon the respondents to stop the

functioning of the respondent no. 5 from the post of

Engineer-in-Chief, Under Rural Development

Department, as Rs. 2.45 crores cash has been recovered

from the possession of his nephew who is an

unemployed, and his wife was supposed to contest

election from the same money & no investigation has

been done is this regards.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 4 of 18

E. For the direction upon the respondent no. 7 to

investigate further, the sources of Rs. 2.45 crores

recovered from the possession of Alok Ranjan nephew

of respondent no. 5 from rented premises & also submit

status of investigation.

F. For any other of the relief or relief.

3. In substance, the gravamen of the instant petition centres on

respondent No. 5, Birendra Ram, who, at the time of the institution

of these proceedings, was serving as the In-Charge Engineer-in-

Chief in the Rural Development Department of the Government of

Jharkhand. The petitioner's case is that the series of bridge

collapses enumerated hereinabove occurred during respondent No.

5's tenure as Chief Engineer, Special Division, primarily due to his

alleged deliberate disregard of mandatory rules and scientific

requirements.

4. The petitioner has further alleged that unaccounted cash amounting

to approximately Rs. 2.45 crores was recovered and seized from

the possession of the nephew of respondent No. 5, leading to the

registration of Jamshedpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 2019, dated

13.11.2019, under S. 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The petitioner further contends that the seized cash belonged

to respondent No. 5 and was amassed through corrupt and

fraudulent practices.

5. The petitioner has also alleged that, despite the availability of

prima facie incriminating material, the State investigating agencies

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 5 of 18

failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, thereby

enabling respondent No. 5 to continue in office.

6. It is, therefore, the petitioner's specific submission that, given the

substantial amount of unexplained cash involved, the statutory

investigating authorities, including the Enforcement Directorate,

were obligated to initiate independent criminal proceedings.

7. To substantiate these contentions, the petitioner primarily relied

upon an audit report prepared by the Principal Accountant General,

Ranchi, which highlighted structural deficiencies and financial

irregularities in the construction of the bridges in question.

8. The petitioner also relied on various newspaper clippings and

media reports to show that the widespread structural failures and

the subsequent recovery of unaccounted cash received extensive

coverage in the public domain. However, he submits that, despite

these developments and the registration of the aforesaid criminal

case, no effective action has been taken against the persons

concerned, particularly respondent No. 5.

9. Based on the aforesaid materials, the petitioner initially impleaded

the Principal Accountant General as respondent No. 6 in the writ

petition.

10. At the outset, however, it is apposite to record that this Court, by

order dated 25.09.2025, upon due consideration, directed the

deletion of the Principal Accountant General (initially as

respondent No. 6) from the array of parties.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 6 of 18

11. Having noted the aforesaid procedural developments, we now turn

to the State’s response in these proceedings. We are constrained to

observe that the same was far from satisfactory. Only after

repeated and, ultimately, stern directions from this Court did the

State Government, after considerable delay, place its response on

record.

12. After the parties completed the pleadings and filed status

affidavits, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the assertions made in

the writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for the State

submitted that the reliefs sought by the petitioner could not be

granted, as most prayers had either become infructuous due to

subsequent developments or were based on uncorroborated

assertions unsupported by evidence.

14. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the

respective parties at length and carefully considered the affidavits

and materials placed on record, we proceed to examine the

controversy.

15. For convenience, the petitioner's grievance may be broadly divided

into two aspects: first, the alleged financial irregularities and

corruption involving respondent No. 5; and second, the structural

failures of the specified bridges and the alleged administrative

inaction in that regard.

16. However, before examining these aspects, it is necessary to note

certain subsequent developments that occurred during the

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 7 of 18

pendency of these proceedings and bear on the scope of the

controversy requiring adjudication.

17. Taking up first the allegations of financial corruption and

unaccounted assets raised in Prayers (c) and (e), reference must be

made to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2025 filed by the

petitioner himself, wherein it was brought on record that

respondent No. 5 was subsequently arrested by the Enforcement

Directorate (respondent No. 7) in connection with a case registered

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

18. Further, as appears from the latest affidavit dated 25.06.2026 filed

on behalf of the State, a formal Prosecution Complaint dated

21.04.2023 was filed against respondent No. 5, Birendra Kumar

Ram, along with co-accused Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda

Ram. The jurisdictional Special Court took cognisance thereof on

29.04.2023, and the trial is presently pending before the competent

court.

19. In view of these subsequent developments, the investigation by the

Enforcement Directorate has culminated in the filing of a

Prosecution Complaint and the taking of cognisance by the

jurisdictional Special Court against respondent No. 5 and the other

accused persons.

20. Consequently, the reliefs sought in Prayers (c) and (e), concerning

the initiation of an investigation and the submission of status

reports, have been rendered infructuous.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 8 of 18

21. In such circumstances, this Court has no occasion to issue parallel

directions in that regard.

22. Turning to Prayer (d), whereby the petitioner seeks a judicial

direction restraining respondent No. 5 from discharging his

functions as In-Charge Engineer-in-Chief, we are of the considered

view that such a direction cannot be granted in the present

proceedings.

23. Respondent No. 5 is a civil servant holding a post under the State,

and his conditions of service are governed by the statutory rules

framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. It is an admitted position of law that decisions concerning

the posting, suspension or administrative deployment of a public

servant ordinarily fall within the domain of the State as the

employer.

24. Moreover, whether a public servant should continue to hold office

during the pendency of an investigation/inquiry is a matter for the

competent disciplinary authority to consider under the applicable

rules, and not ordinarily for this Court to determine in the exercise

of its power of judicial review. (See : Union of India & Anr. v.

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147)

25. Pertinently, the petitioner has not brought to our notice any

statutory provision or service rule that renders the continued

posting of respondent No. 5 per se illegal or contrary to any

statutory prohibition.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 9 of 18

26. Accordingly, in the absence of any demonstrated statutory

infraction, this Court, in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction,

cannot assume a supervisory role over the executive’s decisions

concerning the posting of its officers. Resultantly, Prayer (d) is

decided against the petitioner and stands rejected.

27. We now revert to Prayers (a) and (b), whereby the petitioner

initially sought a roving inquiry into the structural collapse of

various bridges across the State and a report on the administrative

inaction against the higher officials. The petitioner subsequently

sought an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate into these

structural failures.

28. In response to these assertions made by the petitioner, a

comprehensive counter-affidavit dated 25.06.2026 was filed on

behalf of respondent No. 3. The respondent state categorically

asserted that First Information Reports (FIRs) had been registered

wherever criminal negligence was disclosed, delinquent

contractors had been penalised or blacklisted, and departmental

proceedings had been initiated against the officers concerned.

29. The affidavit further clarifies that the Principal Accountant

General's audit observations are recommendatory in nature and

serve as internal administrative inputs, evaluated at the

departmental level before any punitive action is taken.

30. To assess the nature and extent of the measures taken by the State,

it is necessary to examine the specific actions undertaken in the

affected districts, as disclosed in the materials placed before us.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 10 of 18

The same, in a condensed form, are reproduced herein below for

the convenience of reference:

(a) At Nirsa (Dhanbad), regarding the bridge collapse over the

Barakar River in 2009 (involving an audit figure of Rs. 2.15

Crores), the failure was attributed to structural foundation failure

under high discharge. The concerned engineer was placed under

suspension vide order dated 29.08.2009, and formal departmental

proceedings were initiated vide order dated 14.05.2010. An FIR was

lodged against the erring officials as well as the contractor, who

was blacklisted for a period of ten years. An independent technical

inquiry was also conducted through Birla Institute of Technology

(B.I.T.), Mesra, Ranchi, and a newly constructed replacement

bridge is presently fully operational.

(b) At Karra Block (Khunti), regarding the bridge over the Tajna River

which failed in 2015 due to high discharge and foundation failure

(involving an audit figure of Rs. 4.25 Crores), departmental

proceedings were drawn up against the erring engineer, an FIR

was lodged against the contractor, and the contractor was

blacklisted. The bridge structure has since been repaired and traffic

fully restored.

(c) At Daltonganj (Palamau), regarding the failure of the bridge over

the Koyal River in 2011 (involving audit figures of Rs. 1.84 Crores

and Rs. 1.18 Crores), an initial inquiry was conducted by the Chief

Engineer, Rural Development Special Zone, followed by an

external technical evaluation by B.I.T. Mesra, Ranchi (Report

dated 07.10.2013). Following the inquiry findings, departmental

proceedings were initiated, and the contractor, M/s Kalsi Buildcon

(Hinoo, Ranchi), was blacklisted vide Order No. 1240 dated

29.12.2012 (subsequently reviewed in light of a later order). A new

bridge was sanctioned and constructed, and traffic is presently

ongoing.

(d) In Gumla district, regarding the bridge collapses over the Sankh,

Koel, and South Koel Rivers across the Kedeng-Jairagi,

Bishunpur-Chainpur, Bishunpur-Samdari, and Kamdara-Bano

routes (involving audit figures of Rs. 5.65 Crores, Rs. 1.35 Crores,

Rs. 1.57 Crores, and Rs. 2.91 Crores respectively), the State

attributed the damages to exceptionally high monsoon discharge in

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 11 of 18

July 2011. Vide State Order dated 20.09.2011, the then

Superintending Engineer along with seventeen Junior Engineers

were placed under suspension. Departmental Resolution dated

21.10.2011 specifically recorded structural irregularities in

foundational construction and lack of supervisory oversight at the

Bishunpur (Koel River) and Chainpur (Sankh River) bridges. The

contractor was directed to reconstruct the damaged portion at its

own cost without burdening the public exchequer, FIRs were

registered, and new bridges have either been constructed or

sanctioned with traffic restored at several sites.

31. The affidavit further discloses that disciplinary orders were issued

against the erring officials in accordance with law. Where such

actions were subjected to judicial review or statutory appeals, the

State acted in conformity with the judicial directions and

applicable rules.

32. The materials placed before us by the respondent State indicate

that the bridge collapses were investigated through departmental

inquiries and external technical evaluations by independent

experts, including BIT Mesra.

33. The record further shows that action was initiated against officials

across different ranks, from Junior Engineers to a Superintending

Engineer. The delinquent contractors were blacklisted, FIRs were

registered wherever criminal acts were indicated, and the damaged

bridges were repaired or reconstructed.

34. On the other hand, the petitioner has not shown that the inquiries

were superficial, suffered any specific infirmity, or warrant a fresh

investigation to bring to light any material not already examined.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 12 of 18

35. At this juncture, it is pertinent to observe that, in a public interest

petition, this Court cannot sit in appeal over technical findings or

disciplinary actions taken years ago, particularly where such

actions have already been subjected to adjudicatory scrutiny or

have attained finality.

36. Similarly, the allegation that senior officers were deliberately

shielded is not supported by the record, which indicates action was

taken across different ranks. The petitioner has also not identified

any specific senior officer who was allegedly protected.

37. Furthermore, the Principal Accountant General's audit

observations are advisory in nature and were examined by the

State before administrative action was taken. In these

circumstances, we find no justification for calling for any further

report from respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

38. Insofar as the petitioner seeks the transfer of the investigation to a

central investigating agency, the legal principles governing the

exercise of such power are well settled.

39. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection

of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, a Constitution Bench

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, although a constitutional

court possesses the power to direct an investigation by the Central

Bureau of Investigation (CBI) without the consent of the State,

such power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in

exceptional situations where intervention is necessary to restore

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 13 of 18

public confidence or where the matter has national or international

ramifications.

40. This principle was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. CBI, (2011) 9

SCC 182, and further explained in Prof. K.V. Rajendran v.

Superintendent of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480, which emphasised

that such a direction is warranted only in rare cases, such as where

high-ranking State officials are personally implicated or where the

investigation is demonstrably tainted or biased.

41. Lastly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Romila Thapar v. Union of

India, (2018) 10 SCC 753, relying upon Narmada Bai v. State of

Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, reiterated that neither an accused nor a

third-party petitioner can claim a right to choose the investigating

agency.

42. In the present case, the circumstances warranting such an

exceptional exercise of power have not been established. The

allegations concern specific engineers and contractors, not any

demonstrated systemic failure or bias in the State’s investigative

and disciplinary machinery. Moreover, the matter concerns bridge

structures situated within the State.

43. Additionally, the petitioner has not placed any verifiable material

on record demonstrating malice, bias or illegality on the part of the

police, the Anti-Corruption Bureau or the departmental authorities.

44. As regards the Enforcement Directorate, its jurisdiction under the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, depends on the

existence of “proceeds of crime” derived from a scheduled

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 14 of 18

offence. It cannot, therefore, be converted into a general

investigative agency.

45. In view of the foregoing, Prayers (a) and (b) are declined and

decided against the petitioner.

46. We also take note of the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 16535

of 2025) filed by Ranjeet Kumar Singh, seeking impleadment to

raise allegations of tender irregularities against Jay Prakash Singh,

Chief Engineer of the Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation

Limited.

47. The grievance raised in the application falls entirely outside the

scope of the present writ petition. Moreover, as the applicant

admitted, the matter is already under scrutiny by the Anti-

Corruption Bureau in the connected W.P. (PIL) No. 5465 of 2023

and is also under inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate.

48. In view of the above, no further consideration of the allegations

raised in the interlocutory application is called for in the present

proceedings.

49. The applicant is, however, at liberty to pursue such remedies as

may be available to him in the aforesaid proceedings or before the

appropriate forum. We express no opinion on the merits of the

allegations. The concerned I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

50. However, before parting, one aspect requires our definite and

focused consideration. The FIRs relating to the bridge collapses in

Dhanbad, Palamau and Gumla were registered between 2009 and

2015, yet the investigations in these cases remain pending to date.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 15 of 18

51. While we choose not to attribute deliberate inertia to the shoulders

of the police officials, the length of the investigation period, in no

uncertain terms, startles us. Leaving criminal investigations

pending for over a decade serves neither the administration of

justice nor the parties’ rights and severely erodes the State’s

remedial actions.

52. In this regard, it can be stated that it is a settled position of law that

the right to a speedy investigation is an integral facet of the right to

life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

53. Such unreasonable and inordinate delays, firstly, seriously impair

the administration of the criminal justice system because very

often the perpetrators of serious crimes escape; and secondly, such

delays impinge upon the fundamental right to speedy justice

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (See: Hussainara

Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC

81).

54. Furthermore, this constitutional guarantee does not remain

dormant during the pre-trial phase; it commences and operates

across every stage, be it investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, or

revision, so that the prejudice stemming from unexcused and

avoidable delays may be averted (See: Abdul Rehman Antulay v.

R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225). Long-pending investigations

must, therefore, be brought to an expeditious and logical

conclusion.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 16 of 18

55. Consequently, while declining the substantive prayers for

transferring the investigation or launching fresh roving inquiries,

this Court cannot remain a mute spectator to inordinate

administrative and police delays.

56. Accordingly, to ensure that the departmental proceedings and

statutory criminal investigations already initiated are not allowed

to languish indefinitely, specific binding directions must be laid

down to secure accountability and enforce the constitutional

mandate of speedy justice.

57. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the following

directions:

i. The Superintendents of Police of Dhanbad, Palamau,

and Gumla districts shall ensure that the pending

investigations in respect of the FIRs registered in

connection with the bridge collapses are completed

expeditiously, and final reports under Section 173 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are submitted before

the jurisdictional courts, preferably within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

ii. The Secretary, Rural Development Department,

Government of Jharkhand, shall oversee the progress of

the pending departmental proceedings against the erring

officials and ensure they are brought to a logical

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 17 of 18

conclusion in accordance with law, preferably within

three months from the date of this order.

iii. Insofar as the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement

Directorate against respondent no. 5 and other co-

accused are concerned, the jurisdictional Special Court

shall ensure that the trial in the connected PMLA

proceedings is completed at the earliest, in accordance

with law.

iv. The concerned Superintendents of Police and the

Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government

of Jharkhand, shall file compliance affidavits before this

Court upon the expiry of the aforesaid period, for which

they shall be held personally liable.

v. If any investigation or departmental inquiry is not

completed within the stipulated time-frame, the

compliance affidavit shall set forth the precise reasons

for the delay.

58. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, without

any order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,

shall stand disposed of accordingly.

59. Within 15 days of the uploading of this judgment, a certified copy

hereof shall be communicated by the Registry to the Chief

Secretary, Government of Jharkhand; the Secretary, Rural

Development Department, Government of Jharkhand; the

Superintendents of Police of Dhanbad, Palamau, and Gumla

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:30905-DB

Page 18 of 18

districts; and the learned Special Judge, PMLA Court, Ranchi, for

strict compliance.

60. We conclude with the earnest hope that the statutory investigations

and the pending departmental inquiries will now be taken to their

prompt and logical conclusion.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Manoj Prasad, J.)

October 14, 2026

A.F.R.

Manoj/Cp.2

Uploaded on 14.10.2026