h) 2. From The avermeni's in The peTiiion if appears ’rhaf The responden'i No.2 had sanci’ioned' a sum of Rs.7,80,000/— for consfrucfion 0f 600 meier’s WEM Road in (5mm Panchayaf Masha under. The Nafionai Rurai E’npioymeni Euamn‘ree Scheme. The pefifioner-Gram i’anchaya'i Masna, is The impiemenT-ing agency. There were certain irregulariiies in fhe said work .in preparation of musien-roii bv “rhe Rezgar Sahayak. A compiaini' To “ihis effeci’ was made by fhe peTiTioner-Gram Fanchayai before The respondent N0.3—C.EO., impad Panchaya’i Lormi vide Annexure P—3, however, wii’hou'i HIGH €0URT (3F CHHA‘TTiSGARi—l 35mgm f ‘n I- D DEvmg" — L. IJ_...'LI nunme MF. I duS‘l‘iCé T.. 3hiFei‘ldFti 1%5ShFa) W.?.{c) No.6763i200? {Pei‘ii‘iary uruciei'i Ar-ficaé 226 af #ne Carn§fi?u?iafu 6f iridia) Fawifioner‘ (5mm Panchaym‘: Masna Throua'h: The Sarpunch 5mm 2°unchayufi Musna, Gmrm Masha, TahxLarmi, Disth B§§sspur {C6} Vs Respondenfs 1. The Sim‘e of Chha?fisgurh. Throuah "rhe Secre‘mry 1‘0 f'rie GOVT. 0f Chha‘i’?isgarh, ?anchaya? and Qum! Dave!o mam” Deparfmenf, DKS Bhawan, Raipur‘ (CG) 3. The Coiiec‘ror, DisTricT Programme Cwrdinafor, D§sff— 3§laspur {C6} 3. The Chief éxecui‘ive Officer, Programme Officer, Janpcd Panchayaf Lormi, 3isf’r. Bihspur- (65) 4. The Sub Divisional Officer- (Revenue). Cianpad Panchaya‘i’ Lormi, Dish". Biiaspur' If'f‘ w?) 5. Union of India, Through The Secremr‘v To *{he Govt of lndiq, Deparimen‘i‘ 9f Rumi Devaiepmeni‘, Naw=3aihh Pi‘esém: Mr. Anumg Shrivas‘mva, Advocm‘e For The pei’i’iioner‘. fiixr‘. 5. Thak‘ur, Panei Lawyer- For respomiem‘ Nosfi, 5k 4 Mr. R. Pradhan, S‘randing Counsei For respondenf No.5. G R A L G R ii E R {Passed on 25”“ Navember, 2&0?) he 'V 1. Heard. " '?age 2 @ deciding The compiaint respondenf No.3 has direcfed fine pefi'h'one To make @aymem‘ f0 The iabourers againsf ‘z‘he musfer-roii. 3. COMen‘fion of ’rhe pefi‘h‘oner‘ is fhm‘ The Rozgar Sahayak has prepared faise musfer~roii and The responden? No.3 is no? making any enquiry on “the complainf of “fhe pe‘rh‘ioner abouf 'rha preparmion of faise musfgrmroii by fhe Rozgar Sahayak. 4. Having iieard iearned counsei for The pariies and having regard To “ihe facis and circumsiances of i’he case! ihe instanf pei‘ifion i£ disposed of wifh a direci’ion f0 The responder)? No.2vCoiiecior' "cumm Disiricf Programme Coordina’ror, Riiaspur ”i0 gef ihe compiain‘r {Rnnexure ?-3) iodged by i'he pe'i'i'iioner enquired by some senior afficer and fake appropria're acfion an ‘i'he basis ef findings of i'he enquiry repori. This exercise shouici be compieied' wifhin a period of“ four weeks from The dm‘e of communicaiion 0f This order. 5. Cansequen‘iiy, iA. No.1 aiso siand's disposed of. 6. Ceriifieci copy as per rules. S ‘ . 3 ' Dhirendra Judge M‘sm? , \i r if; \‘ r ; ~