CWP(T) No. 14221 of 2008 21.10.2011 Present: Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Naresh Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are ex-parte. 2. Petitioner has challenged the appointment of private respondent No. 5 Sh. Lal Singh on the ground that prior to the appointment no resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Satahan (respondent No. 3) and the Pradhan (respondent No. 4) had himself forged the resolution for giving benefit to respondent No. 5, which fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. 3. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 4 was also suspended and disciplinary action taken. Mr. N. K. Thakur, learned counsel, however, submits that he is not aware of any such proceedings initiated against respondent No. 4. He further contended that in any event appointment of private respondent No. 5 stands ratified by respondent No. 3 by passing a subsequent resolution. -2- 4. Whether the resolution passed by respondent No. 4 was forged? As to whether respondent No. 3 had actually passed any resolution at any point in time or not? Whether respondent No. 4 stands suspended or the alleged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were taken to its logical end are facts which are not borne out from the record. As such, there shall be a direction to the S.D.M. of the concerned Panchayat to look into the matter and take appropriate action. It is clarified that in any event payments for the period for which respondent No. 5 has worked shall be released forthwith. In view of the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 21, 2011 (PK)