IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.81 of 2005 Date of decision: 8.12.2010 Saran Dass. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr.K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj to the Government of Himachal Pradesh whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Chhatrari, Development Block, Mehla, District Chamba. 2. The allegations against the petitioner was that when he was working as a Pradhan, Gram 2 Panchayat, Chhatrari, he was directed to over-see the functioning of four construction works, i.e., (i) one room, Primary School, Chhatrari (ii) Pucca street Barneli, (iii) three rooms, Primary School, Dundei and (iv) toilet in Middle School, Chhatrari. A total amount of Rs.2,84,000/- was allotted to the petitioner for such works. The petitioner did not complete the aforesaid works and his explanation was called for. The first explanation was called for in the year 2003 and the petitioner replied that out of these works, three are almost complete and one will be completed in a short span of time. According to him, since his wife was unwell and he himself had remained ill for almost six months, he could not get these works completed within the stipulated time. A similar reply was sent by him in response to the letter dated 2.6.2004 sent by the District Panchayat Officer, Chamba on 8.6.2004. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.7.2004. 3. It is apparent from the averments made in the reply that though attempts were made to serve the petitioner personally with this suspension order, he managed to avoid service thereof and finally the 3 suspension orders had to be affixed at his residence and in the office of Gram Panchayat Office, Chhatrari and, therefore, the petitioner was deemed to be suspended. 4. It is also apparent that thereafter, an inquiry was conducted but the petitioner, for reasons best known to him, did not join the inquiry proceedings. During the course of the inquiry, it was found that as far as Primary School, Chhatrari was concerned, even the work had not commenced and the entire amount of Rs.16,000/- which had been given to the petitioner had not been utilized by him. In respect of the pucca street, Barneli, it was found that the work was incomplete. The estimated cost of the construction done was found to be Rs.10,485/- and balance amount, i.e., Rs.9395/- was mis-utilized. In respect of the construction of the three rooms of Primary School, Dundei, it was found that the roof of the ‘Verandah’ had blown away and work of soling of floor, plastering, doors and windows had not been done and it was estimated that the amount misutilized by the petitioner was Rs.93,565/-. In respect of the toilets etc. at the Middle School, Chhatrari, except for one 4 pit and stones, no work was found to have been done at all. Thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 24.12.2004 and he was given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of Pradhan. The petitioner did not care to reply to the show cause before the concerned authority and, therefore, ex parte action was taken and impugned order was issued. 5. I have heard Sh.K.S.Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 6. It is contended by Sh.Banyal that since the petitioner and his wife were unwell, he could not join the inquiry proceedings and this is the reason for the delay in the construction of the aforesaid works. I am unable to accept this argument. When a person is posted as a Pradhan and is given funds to carry out some work, if for any reasons, he cannot carry out such works, it is his duty to immediately send the funds back to the concerned authorities informing them about his disability to do the same and only then he can say that he is not responsible. He cannot on the one hand retain the funds allotted to him and on the 5 other hand claim that he is not responsible for the delay in the construction of such works. These are public monies made available to the petitioner for the development of public works. In this case, the inquiry officer has found that out of the total amount of Rs.2,84,000/- allocated to the petitioner, Rs.1,48,900/- was actually utilized and Rs.1,35,100/- was mis-utilized. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. December 8, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge