Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 9 (JHR)

Narottam Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, C.J. This Public Interest Litigation is filed on the alleged irregularities in the implementation of MGNREGA Scheme and seeking for a direction for lodging F.I.R. against the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Village RojgarSewak and Post Master of Panchayat Tularam Bhuska situated under the Block and P.S. Meharma, District Godda. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that under Tularam Bhuska Panchayat in MGNREGA Scheme the concerned Mukhiya and others, in conspiracy with each other, have misappropriated the Government money by committing several irregularities due to which the development works are not being done properly and inspite of being brought to the notice of the authorities, no action has been taken by the concerned authorities. According to the Petitioner, he filed a complaint petition before the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda which were duly received by them on 16.11.2012 and since no action was taken, the Petitioner filed another application before the Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Development Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda which were received by them on 27.11.2012. 3. According to the Petitioner, based on the direction issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, enquiry was conducted by the District Transport Officer who submitted his report on 15.01.2013. The Petitioner had obtained the copy of the enquiry report under Right to Information Act and the enquiry report supports the allegation made by the Petitioner as to the alleged irregularities committed by the persons. Further case of the Petitioner is that in the enquiry, concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Village Rojgar Sewak and Post Master were found guilty and Deputy Commissioner, Godda issued Memo No. 181 dated 16.02.2013 under which direction was given to the concerned Block Development Officer and District Panchayat Raj Officer to lodge an F.I.R. against said persons and take appropriate action. Alleging that inspite of the matter being brought to the notice of higher officials and the matter being reported several times in newspapers, no action has been taken against the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Village Rojgar Sewak and Post Master of Panchayat Tularam Bhuska, the Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation. 4. Alleging that inspite of the matter being brought to the notice of higher officials and the matter being reported several times in newspapers, no action has been taken against the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Village Rojgar Sewak and Post Master of Panchayat Tularam Bhuska, the Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation. 4. Drawing our attention to the enquiry report of the District Transport Officer, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though in the enquiry report Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Village Rojgar Sewak and Post Master of Panchayat Tularam Bhuska were found guilty and in spite of Memo No. 181 dated 16.02.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, no F.I.R. has been lodged against the aforesaid persons nor has any action been taken against the concerned Mukhiya for his suspension and removal from the post. The learned counsel further submitted that even though the matter was reported several times in several newspapers about not taking any action against the said persons and in spite of the direction by the Deputy Commissioner to the Block Development Officer and District Panchayat Raj Officer, the concerned Block Development Officer and District Panchayat Raj Officer never paid any heed towards them and therefore the Petitioner seeks for appropriate direction for lodging F.I.R. against the said persons. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Petitioner himself is a Job Card holder in the Muster Roll and that there is no bona fide in this Public Interest Litigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the officers have conducted enquiry and in the enquiry report it was found that the MIS computer operator was guilty for wrong entry in online MIS data entry and that the concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Rojgar Sewak were not serious about the MIS data entry and carelessness about their duty led to the commission of irregularities. It was submitted that on the report submitted by the team, Deputy Commissioner, Godda issued warning against the concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Rojgar Sewak and based on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, warning was also entered in the service book of the concerned Panchayat Secretary. The learned counsel further submitted that since the action had been taken on the complaint of the Petitioner who himself is a Job Card holder, there is no bona fide in the Public Interest Litigation and prayed for dismissing the same. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that since the action had been taken on the complaint of the Petitioner who himself is a Job Card holder, there is no bona fide in the Public Interest Litigation and prayed for dismissing the same. 6. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. By perusal of the counter affidavit it is seen that the District Administration enquired the matter on the alleged irregularities in MGNREGA Scheme. The Project Officer (DRDA), Godda enquired the matter and submitted his report vide Letter No. 991N/DRDA Godda dated 27.12.2012. The District Transport Officer also enquired the matter and submitted his report vide Memo No. 32/G.P. dated 15.01.2013. Both the said officers have not supported the allegations made by the Petitioner rather found commission of certain irregularities during online MIS entry of the Muster Rolls. Finally the matter was enquired by an enquiry team consisting of Project Officer (DRDA), Godda, Block Development Officer, Meharma and District Transport Officer, Godda headed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda. The team submitted the enquiry report before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by their Letter No. 830N/DRDA Godda dated 04.07.2013. The enquiry team had found the allegations of the Petitioner totally wrong and the team came to the conclusion that MIS Computer Operator was guilty for the wrong entry found in online MIS data entry and the concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary, Rojgar Sewak were not serious about the MIS data entry and they were careless about their duty which led to the commission of irregularities done by the MIS Computer Operator. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that on the report submitted by the team, Deputy Commissioner, Godda issued warning against the concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and Rojgar Sewak vide Memo No. 955N/DRDA dated 03.08.2013 and the Deputy Commissioner also gave direction to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Godda to enter the said warning in the service book of the concerned Panchayat Secretary. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner also raised the matter before the Lokpal (MGNREGA) on 13.02.2013 and the Lokpal (MGNREGA) after enquiring the case, gave his decision on 01.08.2013 which is also said to have been complied with. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner also raised the matter before the Lokpal (MGNREGA) on 13.02.2013 and the Lokpal (MGNREGA) after enquiring the case, gave his decision on 01.08.2013 which is also said to have been complied with. 8. Since thorough enquiry had been conducted by a team of officers and follow up action was also taken on the direction given by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda and also the direction by the Lokpal (MGNREGA), we are not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation and this writ petition is dismissed.