THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4319 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against her in Crime No. 27 of 2010 on the file of P.S. Chejerla, S.P.S.R. Nellore District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The petitioner herein was working as a Field Assistant in Chejerla Gram Panchayat. The allegation against her is that during the social audit conducted by the authorities concerned, it is found that in the muster, she has made some false entries and misappropriated the funds by paying the amount to the wage seekers who have not attended the works, causing financial loss to the government. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the social audit conducted by the authorities is not in accordance with law, therefore, the same was challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 26294 of 2008, wherein, while setting aside the impugned notice, this Court passed the order as follows: (1) The competent disciplinary authority shall follow strictly the guidelines laid down in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 27.1.2010 and the rules laid down vide G.O.Ms.NO.98, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dated 09.03.2010, for the purpose of conducting enquiry, social audit etc; (2) If a report of the Gram Panchayat is received by the disciplinary authority, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and if any witnesses are mentioned therein, they shall be examined in the presence of such Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and they shall be permitted to cross-examine such witnesses; (3) If action is based on a social audit, majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and, in their presence, Gram Sabha should be conducted; (4) Any objections raised by the delinquent may be recorded by the Social Audit team and if action is based on MPDO’s own inspection/verification and the inspection by any other functionaries like Assistant P.D. etc., the inspection report showing allegations against the delinquent shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant and the delinquent should be allowed to file his/her objections, if any, and after filing the objections, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision, as per law, and pass further orders, after giving show cause notice and personal hearing in the matter; (5) The entire procedure must be completed within a period of 30 days as contemplated under the guidelines from the date of issuing initial show cause notice, enumerating the charges. In case of suspension of an employee, he/she is entitled for subsistence allowance only for thirty days and if there is any delay occurred in conducting the enquiry, it may be extended for another one month, but, in any case, the enquiry cannot be extended beyond the period of two months; (6) In any case, if it is found that the delinquent has committed misappropriation, it is always open for the authorities, after passing the final orders, to recover the same, as per law; (7) In all the cases where recovery is contemplated, a fresh enquiry shall be conducted and completed, as per the directions of this Court, as above, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any separate recovery proceedings are issued in pursuance of the impugned proceedings herein, they shall stand stayed during the pendency of the fresh enquiry; and (8) The exercise indicated above in respect of the petitioner shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A perusal of the material available on record as also the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26294 of 2008, makes it clear that the FIR which was sought to be quashed in this Petition was registered based on the audit report which was set aside by this Court. While allowing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge observed that if it is found that the delinquent has committed any misappropriation, it is always open for the authorities, after passing the final orders, to recover the same, as per law and in all cases where recovery is contemplated, a fresh enquiry shall be conducted and completed as per the directions of this Court, as above. The Writ Petition was filed questioning the audit notice. Whereas, the present Criminal Petition is to quash the criminal proceedings registered against the persons who committed the offence of misappropriation. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not come in the way of the investigation to be undertaken by the respondent police. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, but however, the respondent police is at liberty to investigate the matter and file a final report either way based on the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, referred to supra. -------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 10th November 2011 ksld