Civil Writ Petition No.8875 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8875 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.05.2011 Sharanjit Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ranjit Singh Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Ajnala(for brevity “the BDPO”), made a complaint vide letter dated 04.05.2011(Annexure P-1) to the SHO, for taking action of misappropriation against the petitioner, which in substance is, as under:- “In reference to the above subject during the year 2003-04 to 2007- 08, Smt.Sharanjit Kaur, Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Machhiwala, received a wheat of 105 Qtl. On inspection of the record, it has been noticed that the wheat has not been utilized properly. The muster roll prepared in this regard are seems to be bogus and the work shown in the muster roll is also seems to be bogus on the spot. From this, it is presumed that the wheat has been mis-appropriated. Therefore, it is recommended that an action be taken against the Sarpanch in accordance with law.” 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the complaint(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to Civil Writ Petition No.8875 of 2011 2 my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 4. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the BDPO has fell in error in lodging the complaint against the petitioner, without adhering to the provisions of Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), so, the impugned letter(Annexure P-1) is illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 5. To me, the provisions of Section 216 of the Act would only be applicable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or property belonging to the Panchayat and not otherwise. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint are that she received 105 quintals of wheat under SGRY Scheme, for the development work of the village. But she was stated to have misappropriated the wheat by preparing bogus muster rolls in this respect. Since, the allegations against the petitioner are of misappropriation and mis- utilisation of wheat and of forging bogus record, which has got nothing to do with the property of the Gram Panchayat, so, to my mind, the provisions of Section 216 of the Act, are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. May 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE