CWP No.11386 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.11386 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.2.2010 Randhir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 & 2 to take action against respondent No.3 under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act in view of regular inquiry report dated 20th July, 2007, Annexure P-1 and order dated 10th June, 2008, Annexure P-2. The factual background of the case is that Murti Devi (respondent No.3 herein) was elected as Sarpanch of village Khotpura, District Panipat. Certain allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of Panchayat funds were levelled by the petitioner against respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto an inquiry was conducted by the City Magistrate, Panipat, report whereof is Annexure P-1. Despite CWP No.11386 of 2009 2 the inquiry report, when no action was taken against respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition (CWP No.1121 of 2008) before this court praying therein that action be taken against respondent No.3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, order, Annexure P-2 dated 10th June, 2008 was passed. The writ petition was thus dismissed as infructuous. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that charges against the respondent No.3 are serious in nature and in view of Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, she is required to be removed from the post of Sarpanch. He contended that from the inquiry report, Annexure P-1, it was clear that charges levelled against the respondent No.3 have been proved beyond doubt. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner should have acted on the basis of the same and directed her removal. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been submitted that after the inquiry report was received, show cause notice was issued to respondent No.3. She was granted a personal hearing by the Deputy Commissioner. As regards mis-utilization of Panchayat funds, it was found that respondent No.3 had made payment through cheque. Regarding utilization of 12000 bricks, it was found that same had been consumed at Dera Machuri. The Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that respondent No.3 was an illiterate lady and did not commit any embezzlement. However, in view of the loss caused to the Panchayat, recovery was directed to be effected CWP No.11386 of 2009 3 from her. Pursuant to the order, an amount of Rs.40657/- was deposited by the Sarpanch in the Panchayat fund vide receipt No.22 dated 9.4.2009 and 12000 bricks were entered in the stock register at page No.10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed to the petition. It is evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat after hearing the petitioner, passed a speaking order. He found that the payment in question was made through cheque and 12000 bricks had been consumed at Dera Machuri. He came to a firm conclusion that Murti Devi Sarpanch was an illiterate lady and no embezzlement had been committed by her. He, thus, ordered recovery of the loss caused to the Panchayat. The said order was complied by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner has been repeatedly lodging complaints against respondent No.3 due to factionalism in the village. Earlier he preferred Civil Writ Petition No.1121 of 2008 before this court seeking action against respondent No.3. After the same was dismissed as infructuous, he preferred the instant writ petition seeking the same relief. It is evident that petitioner is trying to settle his political scores with respondent No.3 by repeatedly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. However, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this court. The stand of the State before this court is that CWP No.11386 of 2009 4 respondent No.3 was not guilty of any misappropriation or embezzlement and thus, action was not taken against her. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to rebut this stand. Respondent No.3, who is an elected representative of the people of the village cannot be removed on flimsy allegations. The Deputy Commissioner found that respondent No.3 was an illiterate lady and had not caused any loss intentionally. He thus ordered recovery of the amount but refrained from taking disciplinary action. I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the said order. The petition appears to be totally frivolous. In view of this, the same is dismissed with Rs.5000/- as costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 23.2.2010 'rajpal'