Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 394 (MP)

Mani Ram Uikey v. State of M. P.

2019-05-16

S.K.SETH, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER 1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 23.4.2019, whereby an amount of Rs. 2 lacs has been directed to be forfeited and to be deposited in the Government treasury. The said amount was seized by the Flying Squad which was found in unauthorized possession of the petitioner. The said action was taken in pursuant to the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India dated 29.5.2015 and the Screening Committee constituted for monitoring the expenses during the election by the District Election Officer Mandla. The petitioner is posted as Forest Range Officer, Ghansour, District Seoni. A raid was conducted by the Flying Squad in Mohan Tolal at Mandla in MLA Constituency,Area 107 and an amount of Rs. 2 lacs was found unauthorizedly in the possession of the petitioner. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that the said amount was kept for the purposes of making payment of wages/bonus to Tendu leaves collectors during the collection of the year 2019 and remaining amount was to be paid to different society. 3. However before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was given an opportunity to justify the aforesaid amount but he failed to justify the same and therefore, the said amount has been directed to be forfeited and to be deposited in the Government treasury . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry and the order is illegal, arbitrary and punitive in nature. 5. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. Admittedly the amount which has been seized from the possession of the petitioner is not his personal amount and therefore, the said amount has been rightly forfeited and has been directed to be deposited in the Govt. treasury. The said order is not an order of punishment and from the perusal of the order itself it is axiomatic that the departmental inquiry has been directed to be instituted in this regard by the competent authority. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.