CWP No. 14811 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14811 of 2007 Date of Decision: 23.10.2008 Rattan Singh and other ..Petitioners versus State of Haryana etc. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to initiate an enquiry into the alleged embezzlement committed by respondent No.6 Ex-Sarpanch Bhim Singh of village Makrana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Mr. Malik appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to an affidavit filed by Block Development and Panchayat Officer and report dated 28.12.2007 enclosed with the same. He submits that an enquiry into the allegations of misappropriation/embezzlement was conducted by the City Magistrate cum Enquiry Officer, Bhiwani who has submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner,Bhiwani. According to CWP No. 14811 of 2007 [2] Mr. Malik, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani has already issued certain directions regarding recovery of the amount allegedly misappropriated. Pursuant to the said directions, Ex-Sarpanch has deposited a sum of Rs. 57,210/-. In light of the said developments argues Mr. Malik there is no room for any further directions from this Court. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Bhan strenuously argued that the enquiry conducted by the City Magistrate is wholly unsatisfactory. He submits that the amount embezzled by the Ex.Sarpanch is much more than what has been recovered from him. Besides, there are various anomalies and inaccuracies in the findings and conclusions drawn by the City Magistrate which need to be gone into and a proper and detailed enquiry directed to be conducted afresh. He further states that another enquiry is being conducted by the Vigilance Bureau against the Ex.Sarpanch which too has not so far been concluded and which could be directed to be concluded expeditiously so that the Sarpanch does not go unpunished for the alleged misdeeds committed by him. The Deputy Commissioner has, as pointed out by Mr. Malik, directed recovery of the embezzled amount from the Ex.Sarpanch which does not appear to be satisfying the petitioners who find fault with the enquiry as well as the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer. We are not, however, inclined to sit in appeal or reappraise the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. That is a matter which can in our opinion be left to the Deputy Commissioner who may be approached by the petitioners by filing a suitable representation to him for a closer scrutiny of the report and if necessary a further enquiry into the allegations. All that we need say is that in case such a representation is made by the petitioners to the Deputy CWP No. 14811 of 2007 [3] Commissioner, the later shall look into the same and pass an appropriate order on the subject under intimation to the petitioners. Even in regard to the enquiry pending before the Vigilance Bureau, we cannot keep the present proceedings pending only with a view having the same expedited. That object can, in our opinion, be achieved even when we dispose of this petition with an appropriate direction. We accordingly direct that the enquiry, if any, pending with the Vigilance Bureau shall be concluded expeditiously if not already concluded and a report submitted to the authority competent to take action on the same. The writ petition is disposed off with the above directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) 23.10.2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'