Civil Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.01.2010 Rakam Singh .....Petitioner Vs State of Haryana and others .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present : Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders Annexures P-4 & P-5 dated 06.07.2009 and 22.12.2009 as well as enquiry reports Annexures P-6 & P-7 dated 07.12.2009 & 24.12.2009 respectively. It has been averred in the writ petition that the complaint was lodged by certain inhabitants of village against the petitioner with Lokauyukata, Haryana. The same was marked to Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal who deputed the D.D.P.O., Kaithal to enquire into the matter. Thirteen charges were levelled against the petitioner. In the preliminary enquiry report dated 20.02.2009, seven charges were found false. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.02.2009 was issued to the petitioner. After considering his reply thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order Annexure P-4 dated 06.07.2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2010 2 vide order Annexure P-5 dated 22.12.2009. Aggrieved by the orders passed, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. Besides the petitioner has also sought quashing of enquiry reports Annexures P-6 & P-7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that conclusions arrived at by the authorities who were placing the petitioner under suspension are absolutely wrong and unsustainable and thus, orders Annexures P-4 & P-5 deserve to be quashed. He has also argued that the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer are absolutely incorrect and thus, enquiry reports Annexures P-6 & P-7 are also unsustainable and thus, need to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of order Annexure P-5 passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana Development and Panchayats Departments shows that it was decided to place the petitioner under suspension as there were serious allegations against him which were found to be correct. In the preliminary enquiry report, it was found that the petitioner had not deposited the lease amount of Rs. 4,66,000/- in the panchayat fund and the cash in hand beyond the prescribed limit was kept by him. He was asked to deposit the interest amount of Rs. 78,761/- but he failed to deposit the same despite a notice issued to him. It was found that petitioner had embezzled the panchayats fund by inflating the quantity of material utilized on the spot. The material actually utilized was in fact lesser. Keeping in view the serious allegations it was decided to place the petitioner under suspension. The Financial Civil Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2010 3 Commissioner passed a detailed order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the said order. Only factual contentions have been raised and the same cannot be adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction of this court. Similarly challenge has been made to enquiry reports Annexures P-6 & P-7 on the ground that conclusions arrived at are unsustainable. I am of the considered view that challenge to the same on purely factual ground is misconceived. No other point has been urged for quashing of impugned orders/enquiry reports. I thus, do not find any ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is totally devoid of merit and is thus, dismissed. 27.01.2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE