Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 20 (UTT)

Matloob Hasan v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-04

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Village Panchayat Development Officer, Development Block, Khanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. There were certain irregularities in various public works undertaken by him, with regards to payment made by him under various heads, which were to be undertaken by the Gram Panchayats and on initiation of proceedings on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Mukesh an enquiry initially was conducted and a report in that regard was submitted on 12.10.2011. The inquiry report thus submitted on 12.10.2011 but the report was found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, a direction was issued by the Lokayukta for holding a re-inquiry over the set of allegations leveled in the complaint lodged by Mr. Mukesh. It was also found that in relation to the investigation a criminal proceeding was also drawn by lodging of Case crime No. 248 of 2011 under Section 427, 504 & 506 at P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. Relevant portion of the Order No. 239(Haridwar)/2010 is quoted hereunder: Hindi ^^f’kdk;r ÁkIr gksus ds i'pkr ftykf/kdkjh] gfj}kj ls vk[;k nsus gsrq dgk x;kA fnukad 12-10-2011 dks i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ,oa Ádj.k esa lgk;d ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] gfj}kj }kjk dh x;h tkap vk[;k dk v/;;u djus ij ,sls fofnr gqvk fd Ádj.k esa xaHkhjrk ls tkap ugha dh x;hA bl rF; dks Jh Mh0ih0nsojkM+h] ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh gfj}kj }kjk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;kA vr% ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] gfj}kj }kjk Ádj.k esa xaHkhjrk ls tkap djus gsrq ,d ekg dk le; Ánku djus dh ekax dh x;h] ftldks Lohdkj djrs gq, ,d ekg dk le; fn;k x;k A** 2. On revival of the inquiry proceedings the District Panchayat Raj Officer had issued notices in pursuance of the letter No. 673 dated 09.11.2011 calling upon all the concerned including the petitioner to participate in the proceedings scheduled to be held on 15.11.2011. In these proceedings the petitioner was also noticed and ultimately on culmination of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted on 16.11.2011, wherein, certain set of allegations, which according to the petitioner pertains to charge no. In these proceedings the petitioner was also noticed and ultimately on culmination of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted on 16.11.2011, wherein, certain set of allegations, which according to the petitioner pertains to charge no. 1 & 6, was shown to have been established in the report against the petitioner, which are quoted hereinbelow: Hindi “vkjksi% 1& xzke [kM+atk dqrqciqj esa eSu jksM ls ckyw ds ?kj rd fnukad 08@05@07 ls 22@05@07 rd 15 fnu dk Hkqxrku ujs”k iq= cythr vkfn 12 O;fDr;ksa dks lh0lh0 jksM fuekZ.k dk QthZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA ujs”k dk dFku gS fd mlus mijksDr vof/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh uk gh dksbZ Hkqxrku izkIr fd;kA tkap vk[;k%& EkSu jksM ls cksyj ds edku rd fnukad 08@05@ 2007 ls 22 @05@2007 rd cus eLVjjksy esa nf”kZr etnwjksa esa ls Jh dqynhi iq= Jh ekepUn] Jh eqrZtk iq= bn~nw] eqlZyhu iq= bn~nw] t;iky iq= Hkjrw] bUny iq= iyVw] vfer iq= Jh ns”kjkt] ujs”k iq= cythr] tkfr iq= ekaxsjke tkap ds le; ekSds ij mifLFkr gq, buds }kjk i`Fkd&2 c;ku fn;s x;s fd eSu jksM+ ls cksyj ds edku rd [kMUtk ejEer dk;Z esa etnwjh dh gS ftldk Hkqxrku izkIr gqvk gSA ¼etnwjksa ds c;ku layXu 01 ls 06 rd½A eLVjjksy esa nf”kZr Jh ujs”k dqekj o Jh vfer dqekj etnwjksa us vius c;ku esa crk;k fd iz/kku }kjk eSu jksM+ ls cksyj ds edku rd fnukad 08@05@ 2007 ls 22 @05@2007 rd lh0lh0 jksM+ cukus dk eLVjjksy cuk;k x;k gS ml eLVjjksy esa muds uke ls etnwjh djuh fn[kkbZ xbZ gS tcfd muds }kjk dksbZ etnwjh ugha dh x;h gS vkSj u gh muds }kjk dksbZ etnwjh Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k x;k gSA ¼etnwjksa ds c;ku layXud&07 o 08½A eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj ujs”k dqekj dks vadu 2190-00 :0 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa 1440-00 :0 uxn rFkk 150 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 750-00 :0 Hkqxrku Jh ujs”k dqekj fd;k tkuk vafdr gSA eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj Jh vfer dqekj dks 1095-00 :0 dk Hkqxrku n”kkZ;k x;k gSA vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu djus ij Kkr gqvk fd fnukad 15@05@2007 dks cSBd ;ksftr dh xbZ gS] ftlds izLrko la[;k&04 esa eSu lM+d ls cksyj rd [kM+atk ejEer djus gsrq izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh Nk;k izfr layXud&09 gSA mDr dk;Z ds dk;ZiwfrZ izek.k i= ekaxs tkus ,oa iwoZ iz/kku ,oa xzk0ia0fo0v0 }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;s x;sA mDr [kM+atk ejEer dk esjs }kjk LFkyh; fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA orZeku le; esa EkSu jksM+ ls mlh ekxZ ij efUnj rd lh0lh0 dk;Z djk;k x;k gSA efUnj ls cksyj ds edku rd [kM+atk yxk gqvk gSA bl [kM+ats dh ejEer o’kZ 2007 esa gqbZ Fkh ftldks eksgYys okfl;ksa us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd [kM+atk ejEer dk dk;Z gqvk FkkA vU; [kM+ats ij lh0lh0 dk;Z gks tkus ds dkj.k okLrfod dk;Z gksus dh iqf’V gksuk lEHko ugha gSA vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj ;g rF; lkeus vk;s gSa fd dk;Z dh vof/k ds nkSjku mDr dk;Z ds djk;s tkus dk izLrko fd;k x;k gS] tks dk;Z djus ls iwoZ gh izLrko ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA bl d`R; ds fy, iz/kku ,oa xzk0ia0fo0v0 mRrjnk;h gSA eLVjjksy esa nf”kZr Jh vfer dqekj ,oa Jh ujs”k dqekj ds dk;Z fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ iz/kku ,oa xzke iapk;r fodkl vf/kdkjh ls tkudkjh dh xbZ rks buds }kjk etnwjksa ds le{k etnwjh fd;s tkus o Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa fLFkfr Li’V ugha dj lds] ftlls Lor% Li’V gksrk gS fd Jh vfer dqekj ,oa Jh ujs”k dqekj dks QthZ Hkqxrku vadu /kujkf”k 2535-00 :0 n”kkZ;h xbZ gSA eLVjjksy esa nf”kZr xsgwa forj.k ds lEcU/k esa Jh lqyseku] jk”ku Mhyj ls jk”ku lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k ekaxs tkus ij jk”ku Mhyj }kjk crk;k x;k fd vfHkys[k pksjh gks x;s gSa] ftldh izkFkfedh ntZ djk;h x;h gSA izkFkfedh ntZ ds vfHkys[k ekaxs tkus ij jk”ku Mhyj }kjk vfHkys[k ugha fn;s x;s gSa vkSj uk gh Jh vfer dqekj ,oa ujs”k dqekj dks xsgwa forj.k dh izkfIr dk dksbZ izek.k ugha fn;k x;k gS] ftlls Lor% gh Li’V gksrk gS fd jk”ku Mhyj }kjk mDr etnwjksa dks 150-00 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 750-00 :0 QthZ xsgwa forj.k n”kkZ;k x;k gSA bl izdkj eLVjjksy esa Jh vfer dqekj o ujs”k dqekj dks QthZ Hkqxrku n”kkZ;s tkus ij iwoZ iz/kku] Jherh f”keyk ,oa xzka0ia0fo0v0] Jh erywc glu ls vadu 2535-00 :0 dh la;qDr :Ik ls olwyh ,oa lqyseku jk”ku Mhyj }kjk QthZ xsgwa forj.k n”kkZ;s tkus ij 150-00 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY;kadu 750-00 :0 dh owlyh visf{kr gSA vkjksi la[;k% 06& ihykokyk rkykc esa jkLrk o ca/kkbZ ds dk;Z esa 10 Jfedksa ds fnukad 20 vDVwcj 2006 ls 29 vDVwcj 2006 rd 10 fnol dk 4800-00 :0 Hkqxrku fn[kk;k x;k gS tcfd ,slk dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA tkap vk[;k%& ekSds ij mifLFkr tkfr iq= ekaxsjke] f”kodqekj iq= vrj] “kh”kjke iq= Hkwyu] PkUnziky iq= gfj;k fuoklh xzke [kM+atk dqrqciqj us vius i`Fkd&i`Fkd c;ku esa crk;k fd muds }kjk ihys okys rkykc esa jkLrk ca/kkbZ dk etnwjh dk;Z fd;k x;k gS ftlds fy, mUgsa etnwjh izkIr gqbZ gSA ¼etnwjksa ds c;ku layXud&17]18]19½A xzke iapk;r ds vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 12@12@2006 dks xzke iapk;r dh cSBd vk;ksftr dh xbZ gS] ftlds izLrko la[;k&02 ds vuqlkj ihys okys rkykc ds fdukjs dPps jkLrs ca/kkbZ dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh Nk;k izfr layXud&20 gSA vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj 08 vDVwcj 2006 ls 19 vDVwcj 2006 rd 12 fnu dk 6720-00 :0 uxn Hkqxrku ,oa 700 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 3500-00 :0 nf”kZr gSA mDr dk;Z ds iz/kku ,oa xzka0ia0fo0v0 }kjk funsZ”kksa ds ckotwn Hkh dksbZ ckmpj] eLVjjksy] izkDdyu ,oa dk;ZiwfrZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s rFkk dk;Z gksus ds mijkUr xzke iapk;r dk izLrko fd;k tkuk vfu;fer dk;Z gSA ekSds ds vuqlkj lanfHkZr LFky ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha fd;k x;kA eLVjjksy esa nf”kZr xsgwa forj.k ds lEcU/k esa Jh lqyseku] jk”ku Mhyj ls jk”ku lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k ekaxs tkus ij jk”ku Mhyj }kjk crk;k x;k fd vfHkys[k pksjh gks x;s gSa] ftldh izkFkfedh ntZ djk;h x;h gSA izkFkfedh ntZ ds vfHkys[k ekaxs tkus ij jk”ku Mhyj }kjk vfHkys[k ugha fn;s x;s gSa vkSj uk gh Jh vfer dqekj ,oa ujs”k dqekj dks xsgwa forj.k dh izkfIr dk dksbZ izek.k ugha fn;k x;k gS] ftlls Lor% gh Li’V gksrk gS fd jk”ku Mhyj }kjk mDr etnwjksa dks 700 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 3500-00 :0 QthZ xsgwa forj.k n”kkZ;k x;k gSA bl izdkj lanfHkZr LFky ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z uk gksus ij eLVjjksy esa mDr O;fDr;ksa dks QthZ n”kkZdj uxn /kujkf”k vadu 6720-00 :0 Jherh f”keyk iwoZ iz/kku xzke iapk;r o Jh erywc glu xzke iapkk;r fodkl vf/kdkjh ls la;qDr :Ik ls olwyh ,oa Jh lqyseku] jk”ku Mhyj] xzke iapk;r [kM+atk dqrqciqj ls 700 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 3500-00 :0 dh olwyh visf{kr gSA 3. For these charges as leveled against the petitioner certain recommendation was made by the Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer to the following effect: Hindi “bl izdkj iwoZ iz/kku Jherh f”keyk ,oa xzk0ia0fo0v0] Jh erywc glu ls mDrkuqlkj dqy /kujkf”k vadu 9255-00 :0 la;qDr :Ik ls olwyh ,oa Jh lqyseku] jk”ku Mhyj xzke iapk;r [kMatk dqrqciqj ls 850 fdxzk0 xsgwa ewY; vadu 4250-00 olwyh fd;s tkus rFkk vfHkys[k izLrqr u fd;s tkus ij iwoZ iz/kku ,oa xzk0ia0fo0v0 o jk”ku Mhyj ds fo:) izkFkfed fjiksVZ ntZ djkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA” 4. There was a parallel proceeding, which was going on before the Lokayukta on a complaint of Mukesh by way of Case No. 239 of 2010 ‘Sri Mukesh Kumar vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Haridwar’, wherein too, the Lokayukta while making reference to the report dated 16.11.2011 the Lokayukta vide its judgment dated 12.01.2012 had issued directions to the competent authority, i.e. District Panchayat Raj Officer, for taking appropriate action to the following effect: Hindi “;g vR;ar vk”p;Ztud gS fd fnukad 16-11-2011 dks lgk;d ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh gfj}kj }kjk mDr laLrqfr fd;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh vkt rd nks’kh O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) laLrqfr dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] gfj}kj dks vknsf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;g vfoyEc mDr laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf”r djsa vkSj d`r dk;Zokgh ls 6 lIrkg ds Hkhrj bl laxBu dks Hkh lwfpr djsaA mDr vkns”k ds lkFk izdj.k lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns”k dh izfrfyfi i{kdkjksa dks Hkst nh tk;A” 5. In furtherance thereto, the Chief Development Officer has written to the Block Development Officer on 10.02.2012 for lodging an FIR as against the persons, who were observed to have involved in the financial irregularities as recorded in the report dated 16.11.2011. 4. Being aggrieved against these orders the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, in brief of Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. He has submitted at the first instance that as against the same cause of action emanating from the complaint of Mr. Mukesh, the Pradhan Mrs. Shimla as well as the Fair Price Shop dealer Mr. Suleman, who were also held to be responsible for the irregularities in the inquiry proceedings of 16.11.2011, proceedings were also being persuaded with. He has submitted at the first instance that as against the same cause of action emanating from the complaint of Mr. Mukesh, the Pradhan Mrs. Shimla as well as the Fair Price Shop dealer Mr. Suleman, who were also held to be responsible for the irregularities in the inquiry proceedings of 16.11.2011, proceedings were also being persuaded with. Consequently, they have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 899 of 2012 (M/S) ‘and Writ Petition No. 701 of 2012 (M/S) ‘Suleman vs. State & Others’ respectively. The learned Single Judge vide its judgments dated 08.03.2018 and 22.12.2017 respectively, held that the Pradhan Smt. Shimla as well as the fair price shop dealer Mr. Suleman, who were held to be responsible for irregularities in the report of 16.11.2011, and against whom the action was being contemplated to be taken since were not referred to be public servant as defined under Section 2(J) of the U.P. Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1975. Hence, no action could have been taken on the direction issued by the Lokayukta in his order dated 12.01.2012. 6. Admittedly, the present case is not based upon the same factual controversy, so far it relates to the official status of the petitioner, who admittedly happens to be a Village Panchayat Development Officer, who falls to be within the definition of a public servant as provided under Section 2(J) of the Act of 1975, and would be amenable to the provisions of the Lokayukta Act of 1975. Thus, these two judgments are of no avail for the petitioner as he stands on altogether on a different official status. 7. As far as the contention raised by the petitioner against the report of 16.11.2011 is concerned, it was infact, a fact finding enquiry, which was conducted after due participation of the petitioner and with a prior notice to him and thereafter he was issued a showcause 17.11.2011 (not on record), against which he has submitted his reply (undated) and no decision has been taken on it and by that time the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. All the orders impugned in the writ petition are only recommendations amongst the authorities for taking action as a matter of fact no actual action as such has been taken, consequent to the impugned orders under challenge. All the orders impugned in the writ petition are only recommendations amongst the authorities for taking action as a matter of fact no actual action as such has been taken, consequent to the impugned orders under challenge. For example letter (Annexure-3) dated 10.02.2012 in fact is not even addressed to the petitioner, it is an official communication between the two state superior officials, so is the letter dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). In fact this Court is of the view that it will not give a cause of action to the petitioner to file writ petition, prematurely before actual action is taken. 8. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had no cause of action at present or at the time when he filed the writ petition to assail the orders impugned because a writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and that too in service jurisprudence the same cannot be invoked for issuing a writ of mandamus or against the order issuing directions amongst the authorities to lodge an FIR against a public servant as the same would not fall to be within the ambit where the High Court should exercise its power issuing directions not to lodge an FIR against an individual, which is outside the purview of service jurisprudence. Lodging of FIR is act which is altogether governed by criminal law. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has got no remedy against such an order where the direction has been issued for lodging of an FIR. This Court is yet again not in agreement with the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason being that criminal law has got complete code, which is the Code of Criminal Procedure which covers and governs the proceedings, that in case if it is initiated as a consequence of lodging of FIR against an individual, the petitioner has got a remedy available under the criminal law. Hence, this argument too is not acceptable. 10. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. There would be no order as to cost.