IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5426 of 2010. Date of decision: 6.5.2011. Jagdish Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ..…Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent No.5: Ms. Anjali Soni, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner alongwith other villagers had made a number of complaints against Smt. Nisha Devi-respondent No.5 who is the elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Bhaullana, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, HP. 2. According to the petitioner despite complaints, no proper inquiry into the matter has been conducted. I am purposely not going into the allegations made by the petitioner, because none of the sides should be prejudiced by any observations which 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 may be made by me. But, there is no doubt that the allegations levelled are serious and need to be enquired into. 3. The stand of the State is that the petitioner did not join the inquiry and did not assist the Inquiry Officer and therefore, the inquiry is still pending. 4. I had called for the record and as per the record, the inquiry has been completed vide report dated 23.3.2011. I have gone through this document and I find that, it is no inquiry in the eyes of law. 5. The main point which has alleged before the Inquiry Officer, i.e. respondent No.4 is that the petitioner did not say anything except for reiterating everything she had stated/written in the complaint. The Inquiry Officer has just considered the reply of the respondent and has observed as follows:- “Keeping in view the aforesaid, it appears that the accused has not maintained full coordination with the Panchayat, nor has the accused obtained full information from the Panchayat. The complainant reported whatever he saw on the spot without getting any information and has made the complaint without any basis. In case the complainant is not satisfied by the works done by the Panchayat, then he can get it assessed from more highly technically qualified person”. 6. In my view, this is no report at all. The respondent No.4 has totally abdicated his functions. The complaint was that the respondent No.5 had misused the funds and had not got certain works done or the works were not according to set standards. This complaint was marked by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra to the BDO and he was expected to give a 3 finding on the complaint and was not expecting to just give a vague advice to the complainant as to what he is expected to. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint made by the petitioner should be examined by some other authority. As such the SDM, Baijnath is directed to personally enquire into the complaint of the petitioner. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are directed to appear before the SDM, Baijnath on 30.5.2011. The SDM, Baijnath is directed to personally conduct an inquiry into the matter. He can himself inspect the works and/or can take the assistance of technically qualified person(s) into the matter. The SDM, Baijnath should submit his report latest by 31st August, 2011. Needless to say, that further action in accordance with the report of the Inquiry Officer be taken in accordance with law. It is made clear that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5, if they so desire can produce any documentary evidence before the Inquiry Officer. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 6th May, 2011. (Deepak Gupta) (Krn Guleria) Judge.