Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arup Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 19 December, 2022
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
19.12.2022
Sl. No. 10.
Mithun.
Ct.No.42.
CRR/4458/2022
Arup Mandal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Suman Majumdar, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
The petitioner is a Gram Rojkar Sahayak (GRS) as per the
MGNREGA Scheme carried out within the jurisdiction of the Block
Development Officer, Raghunathpur-I Development Block.
The present petitioner is one of the respondents in writ
petition No.WPA(P)/116/2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 20th June, 2022. Allegation in the writ petiion was in respect of the misappropriation of funds while implementing the project under MGNREGA in Bero Gram Panchayat within Raghunathpur- I Development Block. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division of this Court directing the District Magistrate, Purulia to get the enquiry conducted under his supervision and in the course of the said enquiry an opportunity of hearing would be given to the petitioners. If in the enquiry the allegations are found to be correct, then respondent No.4 will take appropriate action against the persons responsible for the misappropriation of funds.
It appears from the statement made in the instant revision that the enquiry that was directed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned writ petition was made perculated the Block Development Officer of Raghunathpur-I Block Development. The Block Development Officer subsequently lodged an FIR against the petitioner and another person being Ex Gram Rozgar Sahayak and Ex Village level Enterpreneur of Bero Gram Panchayat.
The petitioner made a representation before the District Magistrate and other District Level Officers including the Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur -I Development Block, stating, inter alia, that the opinion of Gram Rozgar Sahayak confines to a) collect e-MR duly authorized by PO Office, b) verify the e-MR against the job card and the seekers name, c) visit to the work site, d) check the attendance of workers filled in the e-MR by the mate, e) collect completed e-MRs from the Mate and, f) submit the MR copy to the date entry operator placed in GP Office for entry.
The petitioner is not engaged in disbursement of any wage under the said scheme. It was specifically stated by the petitioner that the Executive Assistant/EA-in-Charge/Secretary and the Pradhan are the signatories of the cheque for disbursement of amount. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for committing offence under Sections 403/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record, specially the representation made by the petitioner, it is ascertained that Gram Rozgar Sahayak (GRS) is responsible for verification of the e-MR against the job card and the seekers name and he is also responsible to visit the work site to see as to whether the thematic work has been carried out or not. On the basis of his report, the names of the workers are entered in the master roll by the data entry operator and then money was disbursed by the petitioner.
In view of such circumstances, I am not in a position to hold that the petitioner is alone liable in respect of Raghunathpur Police Station Case No.124 of 2022. At the same time, this Court is of the prima facie view that the other officers are also responsible for defalcation of Government money.
In the writ petition, District Magistrate was directed to cause enquiry personally and to take necessary legal action against the persons involved in defalcation of MGNREGA money. It appears that the District Magistrate has not made any personal enquiry. Therefore, while admitting the instant revision, this Court requires specific report of the District Magistrate mentioning the fact as to whether the schemes supervisor/mate, Nirman Sahayak, Executive Assistant. Executive Assistant-in- Charge/ Secretary and the Pradhan are also involved in defalcation of money and liable to be prosecuted in connection with Raghunathpur Police Station Case No. 124 of 2022 on the next date of hearing.
The petitioner is directed to serve notice upon the private opposite parties under registered speed post with acknowledgment due and upon the State of West Bengal through the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcuta and to file affidavit of service within 3 weeks from the date of this order.
In the meantime, the Investigating Officer is permitted to proceed with the investigation. He may also record the statement of the petitioner by giving notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he shall not take any coercive step against him for a period of 6 weeks.
Liberty to mention.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )