IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.692 of 2009 KANTI DEVI BADLU TOLA, CHAPRA MUFASSIL, SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI R.DEPT 3. DY DIRECSTOR, ELECTIONS, P.R.DEPT, BIHAR 4. COMMISSIONER SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA 5. COLLECTOR SARAN 6. BDO, CHAPRA SADAR 7. AREA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SARAN 8. SP, SARAN 9. LALTI DEVI, MEMBER PANCHAYAT SAMITI, JALALPUR, JHUMAK TOLA 10. SARSWATI DEVI, MEMBER PANCHAYAT SAMITI, KOHBARWAN, BADLU TOLA. ----------- 4 25.06.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing order dated 19.5.2009, passed by Divisional commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Case no. 52-7/2007. She further seeks full fledged enquiry into the allegations made by respondent no.9 including examination of latter’s signature by the Forensic science lab, Patna which she says to be forged. The further prayer is to restrain initiation of disciplinary proceeding pursuant to the impugned report of the commissioner. The petitioner was elected as Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Raj Badlu Tola in the year 2006. In the same year, all the members of the Panchyayat Samiti also took charge of their office. The Government decided to appoint Siksha Mitra and necessary forms/applications were issued in this regard. Petitioner including four others were made members of a sub –committee, pursuant to decision taken in the general body meeting for appointment of 11 posts of Siksha Mitra. A provisional merit list( annexure 2) of appointees was prepared duly signed by all the members on - 2 - 8.11.2006. Thereafter the sub-committee again sat twice on 8.11.2006, 18.11.200629 to finalize the list. The petitioner submits that as respondent no.9 who was also a signatory to the list being Panchayat Member of the Sub-committee did not succeed in manipulating the provisional merit list, she turned a Volte face and filed a petition dated 12.1.2007 before the Commissioner, respondent no.4. She castigated the whole selection process alleging that Mukhia and Panchayat Secretary have forged her signatures. Her name has been signed as Lilawati Devi in place of Lalti Devi. Documents were sent for Forensic examination in course of enquiry. The enquiry report did not opine any conclusion on account of insufficiency of documents. In the meantime, enquiry proceeded and show cause notice was issued to petitioner. The State counsel submits that after considering the materials on record, the enquiry officer found the allegations to be true. Thereafter the matter came to the court of Divisional Commissioner, Chapra giving rise to Case no. 52 of 2007. Referring to annexure 16, learned counsel for the State submits that in the aforesaid case show cause was given to the petitioner. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that no personal hearing was given. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order dated 19.5.2009 gave certain directions including institution of FIR and initiation of departmental proceeding. The Court also recommended the matter to the State Government for taking further steps against the petitioner/Mukhia in terms of section 18(5) of the - 3 - Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amended) Act 2006. He further states that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a criminal prosecution has been instituted against him. Furthermore in this respect, a letter dated 9.6.2009, annexure 19 was sent to the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar who issued show cause dated 5.7.2009, contained in annexure 20 to substantiate the allegation made against her. The petitioner submits that if disputed signature of Lalti Devi is tallied with her admitted signature, the same would show that these have been executed by one and the same person. It appears that pursuant to recommendation of the Commissioner, dated 19.5.2009, contained in annexure 1 a notice had also been issued to the petitioner in terms of section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. As the impugned order in question has subsequently been given effect to so far as institution of FIR is concerned, the prayer restraining the respondents from instituting a FIR, has become redundant. In such situation, this Court observes that till the decision of the State Government, no further steps would be taken in respect of departmental proceeding. The writ petition is disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)