Retired CPWD engineer gets three-year jail for taking bribe
- L-G Jung functioning as if there is President's Rule in Delhi: Sisodia
- Suicide car bomb kills at least 6, injures 9 in Kabul
- VIDEO: Teased by bodyguard, Agra woman smashes SP leader's Mercedes
- Amid Delhi Chief Secy row, at least dozen govt officers ready to leave city
- Modi govt calls for 'fitting' commemoration of Rajiv Gandhi death anniversary
Observing that there is rampant corruption in government departments and nothing is done without "palm greasing", a Delhi court has sentenced a retired CPWD executive engineer to three years imprisonment for demanding bribe for awarding a tender.
Special CBI Judge Pradeep Chaddah also imposed a fine of Rs two lakh on 62-year-old Sita Ram, who was working as Executive Engineer in Central Public Works Department (CPWD), for abusing his official position and demanding bribe.
"There is rampant corruption in almost all government departments and CPWD is no exception to it. Not a single sheet of paper moves until and unless the palms are greased.
"Not a single tender can be awarded or payment released until the officials in charge are suitably awarded by the public," the judge said.
According to CBI, CPWD Pusa road had floated tenders for construction of a shed for diesel generator for their building and when the bids were opened, complainant Ajit Singh Yadav was called for negotiations by accused Sita Ram in May 2006.
Instead of awarding the contract to Yadav whose bid was lowest, the accused demanded bribe of two per cent of the accepted tender value which was around Rs 7,000, it said.
It added that the accused had told Yadav that the tender would be given to him if he pays the money otherwise it would be cancelled and fresh tender would be floated.
Yadav then filed a complaint with the CBI and a trap was laid during which the accused was caught accepting Rs 7,000 as bribe from the complainant and he was arrested.
The court while awarding the sentence to the convict kept in mind his age and background but also observed that the allegations against him of accepting and demanding bribe as a public servant are "quite serious".
The convict claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by the complainant who was having grudges against him.The court, however, rejected his submission saying though the bid of the complainant was the lowest and the work should have been awarded within 15 days of scrutiny, accused did not do the needful and delayed the matter to extort bribe.