IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11032 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.7.2009. Gurdev Lal Panch and another --Petitioners Versus Stat of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P-4), whereby the respondent no.4 has decided the complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent no.5 for the alleged embezzlement of funds. Earlier the petitioner filed CWP No. 7434 of 2008, which came to be decided vide order dated 22.9.2008 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 to look into the fact whether any loss has been caused by respondent no.5 to the Gram Panchayat and take a decision in that regard in accordance with law. Consequent upon the aforesaid order the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat seems to have asked the BDPO, Jalandhar (West) vide his letter dated 7.7.2008 to look into the matter. It appears that on the basis of the letter of the Director aforesaid the BDPO has examined the matter and passed the impugned order. It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the funds were spent by the Sarpanch Gurdev Singh during the period 2003-2008 by passing a resolution and spent the grants according to rules and obtained the usage certificates from the Department. It has been further mentioned that no case of mis-utilization of grants against respondent no.5 has come CWP. No. 11032 of 2009 -2- to light. From the complaint Annexue P-1 it appears that the complaint was primarily against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Though in para 19 of the complaint a passing reference has been made that Sarpanch Gurdev Singh is hand in glove with the BDPO, J.E and Secretary of Panchayat and have usurped the grants of Rs.27 lacs and made bogus certificates to grab the grants. No particular allegation was made against these officers. In the absence of any material on record, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.7.2009 lucky