CW 6059/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.6059/2010 Lekh Raj Singh Versus State & Ors Date of Order ::: 10/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kailash Choudhary, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by Ex- Sarpanch of Jatwara (Kota) assailing notice dt.01/04/2010 (Ann.1) served upon him. Counsel submits that inquiry has been held behind back of the petitioner and on the basis of report whereof, respondents have issued notice impugned (Ann.1), which is nothing but an empty formality since the respondents have already taken the decision holding him guilty and the recovery is to be made from him under the report supplied to him alongwith notice impugned. Counsel further submits that as per guidelines issued by respondents-Department, more particularly, Cl.10 (1) and 22.6 whereof, being Sarpanch the petitioner is not directly responsible in regard to the work having been undertaken inasmuch as the inspection of the work was to be made within seven days of completion whereof; as such objection raised in regard to the work undertaken a year before, is contrary to the instructions. It is relevant to observe that even as per Cl.10 of Rural Work guidelines, 2004 CW 6059/10 //2// issued under Circular dt.14/01/2004 by Rural Development & Panchayatiraj Department, the responsibility was of the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. It is true that the inspection was to be undertaken in terms of Cl.22.6 but that would not preclude the authority to examine the complaint if any received in regard to the work undertaken under the directions of the public functionaries. The petitioner indisputably was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jatwara at the relevant point of time while the work was undertaken during his term. As regards submission made by Counsel relating to the procedure of inquiry having been held, suffice it to say that an in-house inquiry was conducted by the Gram Panchayat and on the basis of material made available on record, a prima facie opinion was expressed but that report has been supplied alongwith impugned notice (Ann.1) served upon him, who is always at liberty to file written objection even controverting the finding recorded in the report served alongwith impugned notice. The petitioner is at liberty to file written objections in response to the impugned notice being served upon him and no adverse order has yet been passed by the respondents- authority; in view whereof, at this stage, instant petition is pre-mature and if any final order is passed pursuant to impugned CW 6059/10 //3// notice, adversely affecting him, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail of the remedy under the law. However, this Court finds no justification to interfere against the notice impugned (Ann.1) U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 6059CW2010May10DspDir.doc