1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2008 Shri. Sudam Dharu Patil, Age-58 years, Occu-Service, R/o Plot No.49, “ Bhrama Srushti “, Mohida road, Shahada, Dist- Nandurbar. PETITIONER VERSUS ]] The State of Maharashtra Through its, Secretary, Gram Vikas & Jalsandaran Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 32. 2] Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. RESPONDENTS ---- Mr.V.B.Jadhav Advocate holding for Mr.A.D.Shinde Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge A.G.P./State for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Keshav Deshmukh Advocate holding for Mr.S.T.Shelke Advocate for Respondent no.3. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 07TH OCTOBER, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- ( Per S.B.Deshmukh) 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr.V.B.Jadhav instructed by Mr.A.D.Shinde who appears for the petitioner. Mr.Ghatge Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Mr.Keshav Deshmukh instructed by Advocate Mr.S.T.Shelke who appears for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner seeks following prayer by this writ petition in terms of prayer clause A,B, C :- A] This writ petition may kindly be allowed. B] By issuing appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other writ in like nature the Enquiry report annexed at Exhibit-”D” please be quashed and set aside. C] By issuing appropriate writ of Mandamus or any other writ in like nature the suspension order dtd.4/3/2008 please be quashed and set aside. 3] The petitioner also seeks interim relief as follows- D] Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the execution, implementation and operation of the suspension order dtd.4/3/2008 please be stayed. 3 E] Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the execution, implementation and operation ` of the suspension order dtd.4/3/2008 please be quashed and set aside. 4] The petitioner, on the date of filing of this writ petition, was working as Extension Officer (Education) Panchayat Samiti Dhadgaon, district Nandurbar. It is not in dispute that this Court in Writ Petition No. 393/2007, which was filed in this Court by one Mr.Abhinsing Babu Padavi and another ( who are not party in this writ petition) had sought an inquiry on account of alleged misappropriation of funds and fabrication of record. According to petitioners in Writ Petition No. 393/2007 present petitioner is one of the culprits for such misappropriation and fabrication. Those petitioners have alleged that there was heavy rain and flood in the month of June 2005 in the area of Shahada Taluka within the limits of Nandurbar district. However under the pretext of repairs to school building which allegedly had sustained damage on account of heavy rain and flood, the petitioners got sanctioned funds and misappropriated. This Court according to petitioner, passed an order in Writ Petition No.393/2007 and directed the Divisional Commissioner, Revenue to cause inquiry. Accordingly, Learned Divisional Commissioner, (Revenue) Nashik, constituted three members committee. Said committee, has inquired into the issues and submitted its report. Such report is submitted by the Learned Divisional Commissioner Nashik, Division Nashik to Assistant Registrar, of this 4 Court, at Aurangabad. It is dated 12th February, 2008, Exh-D is the copy of communication. Copy of the report is also on record ( page 36) 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, took us to the report. According to him, report is per-se illegal. He seeks to quash the report. Learned A.G.P. Mr.Ghatge, points out the communication of Learned Divisional Commissioner and report of the committee. Advocate Mr.Keshav Deshmukh, for respondent no.3 points out findings recorded by the committee against the petitioner. He also supports the report. 6. As we have mentioned in above paragraph, this Court had issued directions in Writ Petition No.393/2007 and accordingly, Learned Divisional Commissioner Nashik, Division Nashik, had constituted and directed the committee . In this background on behalf of the respondents, affidavit in reply has not been filed, it is not necessary also. 7. We have considered the report. The learned Divisional Commissioner has constituted the inquiry committee comprising of one Mr.H.K.Gosavi Special Executive Officer, Implementation, Guarantee Scheme Section Office of Divisional Commissioner Nashik, Mr.N.B.Dhumal, Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) Office of Divisional Commissioner Nashik ; Mr.N.B.Dhumal Deputy Engineer (Establishment) Officer of Divisional Commissioner Nashik and Mr.B.M.Borude, Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar. 5 8. Undeniably, committee was directed to inquire into as to whether during the month of June 2005 to August 2005 school building of village Dhurkheda, Taluka Shahada has sustained damage due to heavy rain and flood. Another issue was to be inquired into by the committee was utilization of public funds for carrying out repairs of the building in question. Third point which was inquired into by the committee was as to whether agreement entered into by and between Dhurkheda Grampanchayat and Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, as well as genuineness of the agreement of Mr.Abhisingh Bapu Padavi, person who was holding the position as a Sarpanch of Dhurkheda Grampanchayat. 9. From the copy of the report, it is manifest that petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. His statement was recorded on 4th December, 2007. He claims in the statement that information regarding damage to the school building and requirement of repairs was supplied to Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) and Education Officer, concerned. He also claims in his statement that he had addressed a letter to Education Officer, (Primary) directly i.e. without filing through the proper channel or procedure. Petitioner, however, in his statement dated 4th December, 2007 categorically admits that sanction for alleged repairs of school building from Education Officer ( Primary ) was not obtained. 10. The committee had recorded statements of following officials and persons. 6 1] Mr.Abhisingh Padavi ( erstwhile Sarpanch of village Dhurkheda) 2] Mr.Rajaram Choudhary R/o village Dhurkheda. 3] Head aaster of school at Dhurkheda. 4] Tahsildar, Shahada, 5] Mr.Valvi , Block Development Officer. 6] Education Officer ( Primary) Zilha Parishad, Nandurbar. 7] Mr.R.S.Kulkarni, Junior Assistant, who was working at District Level and was incharge of Subsidy Section at the relevant time. 8] Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Shahada, 9] Mr.J.D.Patil, Section Engineer. 10] Mr.P.S.Chavan, Junior Engineer. 11] Mr.M.S.Mundankar, Deputy Engineer 12] Executive Engineer Zilha Parishad Building and Communication 13] Mr.Narendra Bansilal Choudhary 14] Mr.Ganesh Bansilal Choudhary. R/o Dhurkheda. 15] Mr.A.R.Chavan, Village Development Officer. 16] Mr.Rathod Block Development Officer, Shahada. 11] According to statements of various persons and officers which we have noticed that fair opportunity was given to the petitioner. The committee has also referred to some documentary evidence i.e. communication, original agreement etc. Looking to the nature of allegations, the committee had referred admitted thumb impression of complainant Mr.Abhisingh Padavi (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 393/2007) and the original agreement allegedly bearing thumb 7 impression of said Abhisingh to Director-Superintendent of Police. Thumb impression Pune, for verification and opinion. It has been informed by the communication dated 7th of Jan. 2008 to the committee. Expert has recorded the opinion that thumb impression appearing on the agreement (F.P.E.O.No.36/2007) and admitted thumb impression of complainant Mr.Abhasingh Padavi are not identical however are varying. 12] The committee thus has given due consideration to the oral evidence, i.e. statements of various officials/persons, has considered the opinion of handwriting expert and various other communications and documents available on record. The committee reached to the finding of fact :- [1] During the month of June 2005 to August 2005 there was no heavy rain and flood causing damage to the school building Dhurkheda Taluka Shahada. [2] In the list prepared by the competent authorities of the villages allegedly sustain damage to the public property by flood and heavy rain there is no reference to school building of village Dhurkheda. [3] Reference to the school building of village Dhurkheda appears to be in second list i.e. corrected. The list submitted by Education Officer (Primary)Zilha Parishad 8 Nandurbar, doesn’t contain the name of the school building of Dhurkheda. 13] We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties. In our opinion, ample opportunity was made available to the petitioner in inquiry. Report submitted by the committee is based on oral and documentary evidence available to the committee. We do not find perversity in this report, for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14] This report we have examined only in relation to the submission on behalf of the present petitioner. In our opinion, this petition is devoid of substance. 15] Writ petition stands dismissed. Interim relief if any stands vacated. 16] Rule discharged. No costs. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J ] [ S.B.DESHMUKH,J.] Date: 07/10/2010 DSP/wp.2258.08 9