IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2600 of 2010. Judgment reserved on 12.5.2011. Date of Decision: 19.5.2011. Yash Pal …Petitioner. Versus. State of HP & Others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For Respondents No. 4 & 5: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has basically prayed that an inquiry be conducted and action be initiated against respondents No.4 and 5 on the basis of such inquiry and they be dealt with suitably in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is admittedly a former President of the Panchayat Samiti, Nahan. According to him, it was brought to his notice in the capacity of Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti that respondent No.4 while working as Secretary and respondent No. 5 while working as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Palion, Tehsil Nahan without any resolution of the Panchayat and without 2 filling up the register of resolutions have mis-utilized and embezzled the funds of the Panchayat. He forwarded the complaint to the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister who forwarded the same to respondent No.2, who in turn directed respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan to conduct an inquiry in this behalf. Thereafter respondent No.4 was put under suspension, but according to the petitioner, the inquiry was not completed. Some other allegations were also made, but these have not been pressed at the time of hearing of this petition. 3. The respondent-State along with its reply has stated that on the basis of the complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the District Panchayat Officer and respondent No.4 was suspended. He was then charge-sheeted and regular inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report was submitted on 23.4.2009 and respondent No.3 awarded penalty of censure to respondent No.4 As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, the stand of the State appears to be, that since he is no longer Pradhan of the Panchayat, no action could be taken against him. 4. I have gone through the inquiry report in detail and find that the same has been carried out in a very slipshod manner. Admittedly, the proceedings of the meeting of the Panchayat were not entered in the proceedings Register and w.e.f. 2.1.2005 to 19.4.2006, i.e. almost for one year no resolution empowering the official to withdraw any amount from the bank were recorded in the said register. In fact, the delinquent official also admitted 3 that such mistake has occurred, but according to the inquiry officer nothing has been brought on record to show that there has been embezzlement in funds or otherwise. This was a very serious charge made against respondent No.4. Whatever action the defendant has taken against respondent No.4, this Court cannot set aside the same in these proceedings, but the fact remains that the proceedings were not recorded in the register and it is not clear even from the inquiry report whether the funds allotted to the Panchayat have been mis-utlized or not. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to issue the following directions:- i) Respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan shall personally carry out an inquiry and shall find out what were the funds allotted to the Panchayat during the aforesaid period. He shall thereafter enquire, whether any resolution was passed empowering respondents No.4 and 5 to withdraw any amount; ii) He shall also find out whether respondent No.4 and 5 have withdrawn any amounts from the Panchayat and if they have withdrawn the amount under what authority and for what purposes?; iii) In case he finds that all the funds have been properly utilized and there is no misuse and embezzlement of funds he may drop the proceedings. In case he finds that some funds have been used without authority or have been mis-utilized or there is discrepancy 4 between the funds allotted to the Panchayat and the amount actually spent by the Panchayat, then he shall ensure that a vigilance inquiry is conducted and appropriate criminal action is taken against the guilty persons. Needful be done within three months from today. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. 19th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.