Civil Writ Petition No. 10124 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 10124 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Ram Niwas …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 5. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against respondent No.6 and other officials found guilty of embezzlement of old age pension, for widows and for handicapped persons, pursuant to the inquiry conducted by respondent No.3. Civil Writ Petition No. 10124 of 2009 2 When the matter came up before us on 13.7.2009, we directed Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, to take instructions from the respondents as to what action had been taken by them in terms of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, on 12.5.2009 (Annexure P3), by which the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Rohtak, not only to recover the embezzled amount from Jagdish Chander, Sarpanch concerned, but also to get a case registered against him for embezzlement along with other persons involved in the same. Mr. Randhir Singh has, in compliance with the said direction, filed an affidavit sworn by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Rohtak. A reading of the said affidavit, shows that action against respondent No.6 has already been initiated inasmuch as the said respondent has been placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure R6) to the counter affidavit. It is also evident from a reading of said order that an inquiry against the Sarpanch has also been directed in terms of Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, appointed as a regular Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not got a case registered with the jurisdictional police to investigate the offence of misappropriation, forgery and fabrication of documents, even though the Deputy Commissioner had earlier issued a direction to that effect. He urged that the respondents are trying to somehow shield respondent No.6 and everyone involved in the embezzlement and are delaying the filing of FIR. Civil Writ Petition No. 10124 of 2009 3 Mr. Randhir Singh, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Deputy Commissioner is seized of a communication received from the Block Development & Panchayat Officer dated 15.6.2009 seeking his guidance whether a case should be registered against the delinquent Sarpanch even after the recovery of the embezzled amount. He submits that the fact that the embezzled amount has been recovered may not provide any justification for not taking action for the commission of any offence against the Sarpanch or anyone else involved in the same. He submits that a copy of the report submitted by the City Magistrate-cum-Investigating Officer, Rohtak, (Annexure P2) shall be forwarded by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Rohtak, to the Station House Officer of jurisdictional Police Station for registration of a proper case against the Sarpanch and everyone else involved in the embezzlement of the amount in question. He submits that the needful shall be done by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, within one week. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to continue these proceedings on our board and dispose of the same with the direction that the inquiry instituted against respondent No.6 shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the competent authority and action warranted, under law, for the alleged embezzlement of the amount, taken by way of registration of FIR against the concerned in the jurisdictional Police Station. Needless to say that the investigation of the case registered pursuant to the FIR shall also be expedited and in case the offence of embezzlement, misappropriation and forgery is proved against the Civil Writ Petition No. 10124 of 2009 4 Sarpanch or anyone else, a proper challan presented with the jurisdictional Court, expeditiously. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 16, 2009 “DK”