Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2039 (HP)

Kewal Ram Lothta v. Secretary Panchayati Raj

2019-12-30

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard. 2. The Block Development Officer, Chopal had sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,80,900/- to the Gram Panchayat, Pujarli for construction of toilets for 67 families of BPL i.e. Rs.2700/- to each family. Smt. Sunita, the then Ex-Pradhan and Smt. Usha Devi, then then Panchayat Secretary (respondents No.6 and 7 herein), withdrew an amount of Rs.85,000/- through self cheque from the accounts of the Gram Panchayat. This amount was shown to have been spent on the construction of toilets of 24 families belonging to BPL. But out of the said 24 persons, 3/ 4 persons had already died in the year 2008 and it is the allegation of the petitioner that fraud receipts were prepared after withdrawal of the amount in their names. 3. Not only this, on 18.11.2011, respondents No.6 and 7 again withdrew an amount of Rs.41,400/- from the Panchayat General Account against self cheque and the same were disbursed to 7 persons of BPL families for the construction of toilets. Here again one person died and Nikka Ram stated that he has not received any amount nor issued any receipt. An inquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint and it was found that respondents No.6 and 7 had shown the receipts against dead persons. 4. The District Panchayat Officer i.e. respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 18.5.2016 directed the Block Development Officer, Chopal, i.e. respondent No.5 to take further inquiry and the same was thereafter conducted by the Sub Inspector Block Development, Chopal, who submitted his report dated 27.9.2016. On the basis of the inquiry so conducted, respondent No.4 i.e. District Panchayat Officer, Shimla issued letter of recovery of embezzled amount to respondents No.6 and 7 wherein they have admitted their fault and thereafter even deposited the amount in question. 5. However, since no action against them i.e. respondents No.6 and 7 was being taken especially for offence committed by them under the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition for the grant of following relief: (a) To pass an appropriate writ, order or directions to respondents No.1 to 5 and 8 to take appropriate action against the respondents No.6 and 7 for committing forgery and misutilisation of the Govt. funds and register the FIR. 6. funds and register the FIR. 6. The respondents No.1 to 5 are Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Director, Panchayati Raj, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Panchayat Officer, Shimla and Block Development Officer, Chopal, who have filed their joint reply wherein they have categorically admitted that in the inquiry conducted against respondents No.6 and 7, an amount of Rs.17,928/- was found to have been misappropriated as is evident from para-3 of the preliminary submissions and para-6 of the reply on merits. 7. However, what surprising is that despite a clear case of offence(s) having been committed under the Indian Penal Code, respondents No.1 to 5 did not even think it appropriate to inform the police about the offence(s) so committed and admitted by respondents No.6 and 7. 8. In terms of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder, it was incumbent upon respondents No.1 to 5 keeping in view the mandate of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, more particularly, Rule 75 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Finance, Budget, Accounts, Audit, Works, Taxation and Allowances) Rules, 2002 arrangement of Rules to have informed the police when it had come to their light that criminal offence(s) had been committed by respondents No.6 and 7. 9. What is more surprising if not shocking is the manner in which respondent No.8 i.e. the Director General of Police (Vigilance) Himachal Pradesh has dealt with the entire matter by filing reply which is available at pages 77-80 of the paper book wherein the said respondent has acknowledged the receipt of the complaint dated 12.12.2014 in which the petitioner had made certain allegations regarding misutilisation of government funds, committing forgery and preparing false records regarding the amount released to the Panchayat. But instead of acting upon the said complaint, which prima-facie disclosed the commission of criminal offence(s), respondent No.8 simply forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla for further inquiry into the matter by referring one notification dated 15.6.1983 wherein certain amendments/ changes have been brought about in the business. However, the fact remains that this letter is prior to promulgation of the Rules and therefore, could have not been made the basis for simply abdicating one''s duty and referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. 10. However, the fact remains that this letter is prior to promulgation of the Rules and therefore, could have not been made the basis for simply abdicating one''s duty and referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. 10. For it is more than settled that once the cognizable offence come to the notice of the Investigating Agency, it has no option but to proceed with the investigation by lodging an FIR to this effect. 11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that fraud has reached its crescendo. Deeds as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be permitted to be perpetrated. Shakespeare aptly described such sordid affairs in the following manner: thus much of this, will make Black, white; foul, fair; Wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha, you gods: why this? 12. Even otherwise, the entire scope of the Panchayati Raj Act and the various Rules framed thereunder, leave no manner of doubt that all the authorities constituted under the Act coupled with the various authorities of the Administration i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police etc. etc. have to work in tandem and act in unison so as to ensure that not only the letter but even the spirit of the Act is implemented. 13. Unfortunately, the official respondents have remained oblivious of the duties and responsibilities cast under the Act. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and respondents No.1 to 5 and 8 are directed to take appropriate action against respondents No.6 and 7 on the basis of the admitted acts of forgery and mis-utilization of the government funds and after formally registering an FIR, respondent No.8 is directed to proceed in the investigation of the case and take to its logical end promptly and in no event later than 31st March, 2020. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.