Mohd. Sarafraz v. District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar
2022-10-15
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI
body2022
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present writ petition has been preferred to assail the letter dated 16.09.2022, issued by the Chief Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, wherein he has called upon the Block Development Officer to take action against the petitioner in relation to the alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.15,77,351/-, when he was the Gram Pradhan. 2. The submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Chief Development Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the said communication. 3. The said communication had been issued in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation, being WPPIL No. 96 of 2022, on 18.07.2022. 4. The said order dated 18.07.2022, reads as follows : “The petitioner has preferred the present petition in public interest. The case of the petitioner is that even though vide office order dated 05.08.2019, an Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, Assistant Treasury Officer, Kashipur and Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Kashipur, but no enquiry has been conducted till date. The Committee had been granted one week’s time to conduct the enquiry and submits its report to the Chief Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the respondents wishes to take instructions with regard to the outcome of the said enquiry. The respondents shall place on record the status of the said enquiry. In case the enquiry has been concluded, the enquiry report along with further action taken, thereon, should be disclosed to the Court. List the case on 25.08.2022.” 5. The impugned order passed by the Chief Development Officer, in its entirety, reads as follows : “Office of the Chief Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. Letter No. 688/7-P/Gram Sabha/Inquiry-Complaint 2022-23 Dated 16 September 2022 Block Development Officer, Kashipur On the complaint letter submitted by Shri Shanti Prasad, Ex Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Barkhera Pande, Development Block Kashipur against Mohd. Sarfaraj, the then Pradhan, Village Panchayat Barkhera Pande, for illegally withdrawing the money from the account of Gram Panchayat for which the inquiry was conducted by three member joint inquiry committee in the Chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, in pursuance to the letter No. 430 dated 05.08.2018. The joint inquiry committee by conducting the inquiry in the subjected matter had submitted its inquiry report to this office on 22.08.2022.
The joint inquiry committee by conducting the inquiry in the subjected matter had submitted its inquiry report to this office on 22.08.2022. It has been stated in the aforesaid inquiry report that “the then Village Panchayat Development Officer and Mohd. Sarfaraj on 26.04.2019 while holding the post of Village Pradhan after violating the order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand on 26.04.2019 had withdraw the amount of Rs.15,77,351/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty One only) from the 14th Finance of A/c No. 50160000400216 standing in the name of Village Panchayat Barkhera Pande at Bandhan Bank Branch, Kashipur, Chamunda Vihar, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur. Hence, in view of the above, ensure to initiate the legal proceedings as per rules against the then Village Panchayat Development Officer Smt. Dipti Sagar and the then Pradhan Mohd. Sarfaraj for illegally withdrawing a sum of Rs.15,77,351/- from the accounts of Village Panchayat Barkhera Pande. Encl: Inquiry Report (Vishal Mishra ) Chief Development Officer Udham Singh Nagar.” 6. The submission of Mr. Singh that the Chief Development Officer has no statutory authority to issue the impugned communication has no merit. No prohibition in law has been pointed out in the Chief Development Officer issuing the aforesaid communication. All that the said communication does is to request the Block Development Officer to have the allegations against the petitioner, of malpractices, examined. 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. Stay Application (IA No. 01 of 2022) also stands disposed of.