Punjab-Haryana High Court
Netrapal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.8499 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8499 of 2012
Date of Decision: 08.05.2012
Netrapal Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. Netrapal Singh appears to be a member of the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, village Sanghail, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat and is a complainant against Phoolwati, Sarpanch - respondent No.6. He says that he made a complaint and brought to light certain acts of misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds by the 6th respondent. An enquiry was conducted and the Sub Divisional Officer, Zila Parishad, Mewat submitted an enquiry report dated 10.02.2012 (P-7) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mewat. The defence of the 6th respondent as reproduced as recorded in the enquiry report dated 10.02.2012 (P-7) is as follows:-
"Sarpanch Smt. Phoolwati has made the statement that she has not embezzled the funds. The Ujina village is 3-4 kilometers away from my village and the bus of Haryana roadways did not reach on the day of oath ceremony. Due to which she had to hire the vehicles and reached Kurukshetra, where the Sarpanch and Panch took oath. In this regard the statement of the driver Shri Jugnu was also got recorded by CWP No.8499 of 2012 -2- the Sarpanch. Apart from Sarpanch Shri Jai Singh Panch, Mina Panch and Hamid Panch also endorsed the aforesaid facts in their respective statements, but Devi Ram Panch, Dhamendra Singh Panch, Radha Kaushik Panch, Vidya Devi Panch, Kantes Panch, Ashok Kumar Panch made their statements and stated that they went to attend the oath ceremony by the bus sent by the Department."
2. The complainant Netrapal Singh's story is as follows:-
"The complainant Shri Netra Pal has presented the information letter no.8678/PA-III dated 13/07/2011 sent by the Chief administrator Haryana State Roadways Gurgaon, according to which the vehicle number HR 55 7461 was sent at Bibipur turn, bus stand point and fare for up downs was Rs.304 for each passenger. In this regard the complainant has presented the letter no.20112 dated 10/10/2011 of Block Development and Panchayat Officer."
3. The finding of the SDO (Civil) is as follows:-
"After analysing the above-mentioned statements, proofs and record I have come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.10,400 as expenses which has been entered by Sarpanch Smt. Phool Devi, is wrong. Whereas the bus was arranged by the panchayat Department through transport Department and the bus fare for each passenger was rupees Rs.304 and as per Haryana Panchayati Raj finance, budget accounts, Audit, Rules 1996, RULE 66(5) and according to same Panch, Sarpanch are entitled for TA/DA equivalent to third grade employee and for 11+1=12 which comes to 3648. Hence it is proved the Sarpanch has caused financial loss to the gram panchayat of Rs.6752/-.
Report is hereby presented for further legal action."
4. On the strength of this report, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a mandamus to take action against the 6th CWP No.8499 of 2012 -3- respondent in view of the enquiry report dated 10.02.2012 (P-7). The further prayer is that the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2012 (P-8) remains undecided. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is not to be exercised at the drop of a hat or a sneeze. If some amount is found due against the Sarpanch as a result of interpretation of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Finance, Budget Accounts, Audit, Rules 1996, it could not be called "misappropriation and embezzlement of public money" that would be an exaggeration. The SDO (Civil) or the Deputy Commissioner, Mewat can always call upon the 6th respondent to refund the amount. In case, mens rea is established that would be another matter but mens rea is not forthcoming from the enquiry report dated 10.02.2012 (P-7). I have no doubt that this type of litigation is usually fraught with danger of vindictive motivations for which the writ jurisdiction is an inappropriate remedy for settling personal scores. I would dismiss this petition at the threshold.
5. Dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 08.05.2012 JUDGE manju