Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2088 (MAD)

N. G. Kamalrajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-04-15

M.NIRMAL KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioner/A10 in Spl. C.C. No. 10 of 2023 who is facing trial for the offence under Sections 120 (b), 420, 409, 468 , 471 r/w. 109 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act [PC Act] filed a discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 3114 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 06.11.2024. Against which, the present revision petition is filed. 2. The gist of the case is that in Thalayamangalam Panchayat, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District during the year 2016-2020, 143 beneficiaries were selected for construction of houses under Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin [PMAY(G)] and 513 beneficiaries were selected for construction of toilets under Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) [SBM(G)]. While implementing the above projects, the officers who are in the capacity of Block Development Officer [BDO], Engineers, Overseers during the said period, who are arrayed as A1 to A7 and A10 to A12, conspired with A8 and A9/unregistered contractors colluded with each other, failed to issue the subsidy amount to the beneficiaries and the subsidy amount was remitted to the private contractors and in some cases to the persons whose names are not selected as beneficiaries by the Government and projected as if construction of houses and toilets completed and the amount released. Based on the vigilance report sent by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Tiruvarur and on the orders of Vigilance Commission, prior approval was obtained from the Competent authority and a case was registered in Crime No.8 of 2021 against nine persons. During the course of investigation, documents collected towards construction of toilets under SBM(G) Scheme, in which, the involvement of the petitioner/BDO, one Suresh/A11, Deputy BDO and one N. Elara/A12, Deputy BDO was found, who issued cheques for the toilets which were not constructed. Therefore, they were arrayed as additional accused. In this case, proceedings under Section 17A of PC Act from the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayatraj, Chennai in R.O.C. No. 16046/2021/CII-2 dated 06.02.2023 obtained. As regards the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner served as BDO from 28.03.2017 to 11.06.2018 at Mannargudi Block and he served as Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat] [Incharge] from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 as per the proceedings of the District Collector dated 09.02.2018. 3. The BDO is solely responsible for the Scheme implemented by the Government. As regards the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner served as BDO from 28.03.2017 to 11.06.2018 at Mannargudi Block and he served as Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat] [Incharge] from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 as per the proceedings of the District Collector dated 09.02.2018. 3. The BDO is solely responsible for the Scheme implemented by the Government. If toilets are constructed and handed over to the beneficiaries, the Overseer should prepare valuation certificate, beneficiaries list, undertaking letter and place the same before the Deputy BDO, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme [MGNREGS] and Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat] for perusal, they should verify the above particulars and also verify whether the toilets are constructed in the concerned Panchayat and the estimate being maintained in BDO Office, allotment register, cash book, proceedings, voucher and thereafter cheque to be prepared and the BDO, Deputy BDO to sign the cheques. Thereafter only, the amount should be sent to the beneficiaries/approved contractors which is the standard procedure. During the tenure of the petitioner, amount was sanctioned to 77 beneficiaries without construction of toilets. In this case, the first installment of Rs.4,62,000/- was issued to 77 beneficiaries on the recommendation of A1 and A11, the same was credited in the bank account of Baskar/A8, Contractor in his account in Indian Overseas Bank from the SBM(G) Scheme Account. Out of 77 beneficiaries, 11 beneficiaries were enquired during investigation and it was found that without constructing the toilet, the above said officials prepared files/forged documents and recommended to credit Rs.63,000/- from SBM(G) Scheme account to the account of private contractors, thereby caused loss to the Government. The petitioner during his tenure as Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat][Incharge] signed the cheques as per the proceedings in No.2570/2017/A2 dated 15.02.2018 and recommended to sanction Rs.4,62,000/- as first installment [ground level measurement] to the Contractor for 77 beneficiaries under SBM(G) Scheme and the same was credited to the account of A8. The charge sheet in this case was filed listing witnesses and documents before the Trial Court. Against which, the petitioner filed a discharge petition which came to be dismissed and the present petition filed. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer in Mannargudi Taluk as regular BDO who is to perform the duty pertaining to block level panchayat in general. Against which, the petitioner filed a discharge petition which came to be dismissed and the present petition filed. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer in Mannargudi Taluk as regular BDO who is to perform the duty pertaining to block level panchayat in general. In the Panchayat Union Office, there are several divisions for implementing special schemes under the supervision of BDO who are designated as BDO[Village Panchayat]. A1/Sivakumar, A2/Manimaran and A3/Kalaiselvan are the Heads of the Department for implementation of various development works and they are responsible officials pertaining to Mannargudi Panchayat Union. In addition to that, to aid them in the Panchayat Union there are Engineers, Overseer, Panchayat Union Manager, Deputy BDO[Scheme], Zonal Deputy BDO [MGNREGS] who are involved in implementation of various scheme in the field and office level. The petitioner as a regular BDO is not involved in the implementation of Special Scheme assigned to other BDOs. Since A1/Sivakumar, Special BDO [Village Panchayat] proceeded on leave on medical grounds, the Project Officer of District Development Authority of Tiruvarur on the advise of District Collector assigned additional charge to the petitioner for a short period from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 vide order dated 09.02.2018. The implementation of construction of toilets under MGNREGS-SBM(G) Scheme for poor persons, it is the Overseer, Village Secretaries of the Mannargudi Panchayat Union to select the beneficiaries under the Scheme and the proposal would be sent to the concerned Panchayat Union Engineer. Thereafter, the Special BDO of the Scheme would accord sanction to the beneficiaries forwarded by the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat Union. The provisions made towards the cost of toilet construction was Rs.12,0000/- each and it will be distributed in two equal installments of Rs.6,000/- to the beneficiaries. After utilizing the first installment of Rs.6,000/- and after inspecting the stage of work, the second installment would be disbursed to the beneficiaries. As submitted earlier, the petitioner was incharge of Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat], Special Scheme from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018. The petitioner actually performed duties only for one week. In this case, A1/Sivakumar already completed the sanction order to the beneficiaries and the officials under the Special Scheme already identified and selected the beneficiaries which was approved by all concerned. As submitted earlier, the petitioner was incharge of Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat], Special Scheme from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018. The petitioner actually performed duties only for one week. In this case, A1/Sivakumar already completed the sanction order to the beneficiaries and the officials under the Special Scheme already identified and selected the beneficiaries which was approved by all concerned. After the entire process of selection was completed by the Special BDO, the pending work in the office was only with regard to issuance of cheques to the beneficiaries, the Manager of Panchayat Union prepares the bill and the cheques to be issued to the beneficiaries under the Scheme. The petitioner had only signed the cheques pertaining to the Scheme for 77 beneficiaries and now the prosecution claims that out of 77 beneficiaries, 11 beneficiaries have not received the cheque amount. 5. The other allegation is that the amounts were credited to the account of one Baskar/A8 and Mohan/A9, unapproved contractors/private individuals. A8/Baskar received the cheque on behalf of the beneficiaries and the petitioner is not responsible since the petitioner had no knowledge about the internal arrangements and appointment of Contractor/A8 in the Scheme. It is also to be seen that the Contractor/Baskar earlier received cheques in respect of other scheme from A1/Sivakumar. Hence the petitioner followed the same procedure which was followed by A1 and the petitioner was holding additional charge for a limited period. Further the scheme to be completed in a time bound manner, otherwise the scheme would elapse which would have an adverse effect for the future schemes. Added to it, the officials would be questioned held responsible in this regard, for this reason only, since A1 was on medical leave and the petitioner given additional charge and he was directed to disburse the subsidy to the beneficiaries without delay. Hence on 15.02.2018, proceedings issued and cheques signed after getting approval and certificates from the Overseer and Deputy Block Development Officer (Schemes). If there is any procedural lapse, the same can be dealt administratively and not by implicating the petitioner in a criminal case, that to under PC Act when there is no material either by statement of witness or by documents to show that the petitioner connived and in the process, he got benefited and enriched himself. The petitioner has put unblemished service and he is to attain superannuation on 30.01.2025. The petitioner has put unblemished service and he is to attain superannuation on 30.01.2025. In fact it would have been appropriate that the petitioner could be a witness in this case and not an accused. Further, in this case cheating and misappropriation committed by the other accused for some other Scheme has been clubbed and projected, the petitioner now forced to face the ordeal of trial when the admitted position is that the petitioner was posted on additional incharge from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018, in which the petitioner effectively worked for one week and the amount of cheating projected against the petitioner is around Rs.66,000/-. The uncontroverted statement of the witnesses and documents would prove that there is no case made against the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed the petitioner’s contention by filing a counter and submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer [Village Panchayat] as additional incharge in Thalayamangalam Panchayat, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 on the orders of the District Collector dated 09.02.2018. He would submit that whatever may be the period of tenure, the petitioner cannot shred his responsibility by stating that he was only holding additional charge for a short period. During this period, the petitioner issued proceedings in No.2570/2017/A2 dated 15.02.2018, signed the cheque in the name of unapproved Contractor Baskaran/A8 for 77 beneficiaries under SBM(G) Scheme and credited the amount in the account of the Contractor/A8. The petitioner recommended and sanctioned the first installment [ground level measurement] of Rs.4,62,000/-. Thereafter, A2/Manimaran, who is BDO(VP) during the period 08.06.2018 to 14.09.2018 sanctioned the second installment of Rs.2,96,835/- vide Proceedings No.2520/2017/A1 for 77 beneficiaries under SBM(G) Scheme and credited to the account of the Contractor/A8. For construction of toilet under the SBM(G) Scheme, there is a prescribed procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.46 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department dated 26.03.2015 wherein the object and scope of the Scheme, how the beneficiaries to be selected, who are the officers to visit the site, collect details of the beneficiaries, record the same and recommend the beneficiaries for the Scheme all clearly given, the role assigned to Block Development Officer also given. If the toilet is to be constructed by the Contractor, the place of toilet constructed has to be inspected by the Overseer, the signature of the beneficiary, to be obtained in the undertaking, name list and valuation certificate to be prepared, the same has to be put to the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) for perusal who has to confirm whether the toilet is constructed and the amount would be released in two installments to the Contractor under SBM(G) Scheme as per the standard procedure. But the Contractor must be an approved Contractor. In this case, admittedly A8 is not an approved Contractor. 6.1 He would submit that the petitioner on 15.02.2018 recommended and released the subsidy amount for 77 beneficiaries favouring the Contractor/A8. Out of 77 beneficiaries, 11 beneficiaries are found to be non-existing persons. During field verification, it was found that some of the beneficiaries denied their signatures found in the undertaking letter and photos in the valuation certificate is not of them. There have been clear forging of documents. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) who has been entrusted with power and authority to issue cheques/money to the beneficiaries of the Scheme has got more responsibility and cannot shred their responsibility by stating that it is the Field Officer, Panchayat President, Vice President, Ward Member, Overseer, Community Resource Person, Community Professional (Sanitation) who has to do the field work, mark the place of construction of toilet before commencement of work and photographs of the beneficiaries to be obtained and submitted. In this case, initially, permission and approval obtained under Section 17A of PC Act, FIR against A1 to A9 registered after the vigilance report and thereafter investigation conducted, documents collected and statement of witnesses recorded. During investigation, the role of the other accused, namely, A10 to A12 came to light and they were arrayed as accused. On completion of investigation, charge sheet along with statement of witnesses and materials collected placed before the Sanctioning Authority who perused the statements, clarified the doubts and thereafter, independently on getting satisfied accorded sanction under Section 19 of PC Act. He further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are factual which are to be decided during trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal. 7. He further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are factual which are to be decided during trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal. 7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner is the Block Development Officer of Mannargudi Panchayat and A1 is the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Special Scheme. A1 went on medical leave and on the orders of the District Collector, the petitioner was given additional incharge for the period 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018. On 15.02.2018, the petitioner released the subsidy to 77 beneficiaries to the tune of Rs.4,62,000/- and the amount was credited to the account of A8, who is not an approved Contractor, which is in violation of G.O.Ms. No.46 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department dated 26.03.2015. Construction of Individual Household Latrines (IHHL) was one of the important components of Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) introduced by Government of India. Under Total Sanitation Campaign, incentive was given only to below poverty line families, thereafter the Scheme was renamed as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan in 2012 and again renamed as Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)[SBM(G)]. The unit cost of an Individual Household Latrines is now fixed at Rs.12,000/- and it can also be constructed under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). In the Government Order, the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) was entrusted with responsibilities to release subsidy. Though duties and responsibilities fixed to various level Officials of the Panchayat, for the respective work but the Block Development Officer (Village Panchaya) was over all incharge and he is the responsible person for the Scheme. In this case, it is seen that the amount was sent to the unapproved Contractor to his bank account directly and some non-existing beneficiaries name included, some of the beneficiaries claim that the photographs and signatures are not of them. The petitioner was incharge for a short period from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 on the orders of the District Collector dated 09.02.2018 and he issued proceedings on 15.02.2018 which was found imporper and he is facing prosecution. 8. In this case, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2021 on 16.08.2021 against nine persons, namely, A1 to A9, thereafter the petitioner and another two accused, A10 to A12 arrayed as accused. 8. In this case, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2021 on 16.08.2021 against nine persons, namely, A1 to A9, thereafter the petitioner and another two accused, A10 to A12 arrayed as accused. The petitioner is a regular BDO at Mannargudi Taluk and he was posted as additional incharge of Village Panchayat for a limited period from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018. During this period, the petitioner issued proceedings and signed payment vouchers and cheques on 15.02.2018 favouring A8/Baskaran, an independent Contractor. Prior to it, the selection of beneficiaries as per the procedures contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.46 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department dated 26.03.2015 was by the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) and others. The Scheme is a time bound scheme and if not progressed and completed within the stipulated period, it will get lapsed and future programmes will be denied. The petitioner was posted on the orders of the District Collector and District Rural Development Authority dated 09.02.2018. In the charge sheet, four charges listed, as regards the petitioner he is charged under second charge. It is to be seen that prior to the petitioner taking charge as Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) and after he handed over the charge to the assigned Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), the Scheme continued and the same procedures followed. In this case, the physical verification of the site to be done by the Overseer and Assistant Block Development Officer. It is also to be seen that the Panchayat Engineers and People's representative are involved in implementation of the Scheme. The list of 77 beneficiaries, their application and their details collected, certified and uploaded in the AWAS Software and the same is periodically updated. 9. In this case, L.W.1 is the District Collector, who speaks about the sanction accorded. L.W.2 is the Block Development Officer, Mannargudi, who states about the procedure and the Scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.46 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department dated 26.03.2015 and it is the Deputy Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Overseer to physically visit the place, enquire the beneficiaries, collect all details including the consent letter, bank details and property documents. The Deputy Block Development Officer/Manager would issue ID number and register online. The Overseer to visit the construction site, take photographs and thereafter to upload in Awaassoft website. The Deputy Block Development Officer/Manager would issue ID number and register online. The Overseer to visit the construction site, take photographs and thereafter to upload in Awaassoft website. The Computer Operator in the Office of the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) upload in the website then and there. The Deputy Block Development Officer approves and issue sanction order online. The Overseer, Junior Engineer submit valuation certificate and thereafter through the dealing Assistant forwarded to the Deputy Block Development Officer, thereafter to the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) and fund transfer is effected to the beneficiaries' account or to the Contractor. In the case of work by Contractor, again the Overseer, Panchayat Coordinator to conduct physical inspection and thereafter funds transferred to the Contractor. The statement of L.W.3, another Block Development Officer, is in confirmity to the statement of L.W.2. L.W.4, Assistant Block Development Officer, Mannargudi admits she prepares the records, fills up payment vouchers and the cheque for signature and after the Deputy Block Development Officer signs and approves, the Block Development Officer the second signatory approves and signs, thereafter the amount transferred to the concerned Bank account. The Cashier/L.W.6 verifies and sign the documents. L.W.5/Assistant confirms that as per the Clean India Programme, it is the Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat) Kalaiselvan/A3, Deputy Block Development Officer/A12 who verify and sign all the vouchers, cash book and the particulars of beneficiaries filled up in the records. She states the amounts released periodically. The only witness speaks against the petitioner is the Cashier/L.W.6 which would be dealt later. The other witness L.W.7, Project Coordinator confirms the selection of beneficiaries, online registration and the subsidy amount of Rs.12,0000/- paid to the beneficiaries. The primary task of L.W.7 is to confirm whether the toilet facility is available and if not, recommend the construction of toilet under the Clean India Programme, but conveniently states that since L.W.7 had to visit 51 Panchayats and due to paucity of time, he could not inspect all the places. Accepting this explanation, and on his explanation, he is made as witness. 10. L.W.8 is the Village Administrative Officer who visited five beneficiaries under SPM(G) and three beneficiaries under PMAY(G) and found that the names of dead persons were projected as beneficiaries. L.W.9 to L.W.28 are the Villagers, some neither applied for construction of toilets nor received any subsidy under the Scheme. The photographs and signatures are not of them. 10. L.W.8 is the Village Administrative Officer who visited five beneficiaries under SPM(G) and three beneficiaries under PMAY(G) and found that the names of dead persons were projected as beneficiaries. L.W.9 to L.W.28 are the Villagers, some neither applied for construction of toilets nor received any subsidy under the Scheme. The photographs and signatures are not of them. L.W.29 and L.W.30 are the Bank Managers of Indian Overseas Bank and City Union Bank where A8 and A9 having their accounts and Panchayat funds transferred to these accounts. L.W.31 is the Scientific Officer, Forensic Department, who proves that some of the writings and signature of the beneficiaries are forged. L.W.32 is the Inspector of Police, V&AC, who registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2021 against A1 to A9 and obtained prior permission under Section 17A of PC Act, seeking request to the Secretary, Rural Development Department for permission. 11. Earlier the petitioner was examined as L.W.33 and his statement recorded. In his statement, the petitioner gives his explanation about his posting as regular Block Development Officer between 28.03.2017 and 11.06.2018, at that time, he was given additional charge as Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) from 09.02.2018 to 25.02.2018 and the Deputy Block Development Officers, namely, Suresh/A11 and Elara/A12, specifically posted for MGNRES and SBM(G) Schemes. He was assisted by L.W.4/Saraswathi and L.W.5/Mercy, who are Assistants for Thalayamangalam Panchayat Schemes. The Project Overseer is Prabhakaran/A7 and the Coordinator is one Mohan/L.W.7. During the additional charge, on 15.02.2018 the petitioner issued proceedings for 77 beneficiaries and cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.4,62,000/- favouring the Contractor Baskaran/A8. Thus, the order was passed by the petitioner on the note file and report put up by L.W.4, base don valuation certificate issued by the Overseer certified by Deputy Block Development Officer (Schemes). When the petitioner was questioned with regard to the discrepancies, the petitioner gave his explanation that he was only holding additional charge and he had followed the usual procedure followed in and on the good faith placed on his Officers, namely, L.W.4, L.W.5, L.W.7 and A7, he issued proceedings, signed the cheque as Second Signatory. Further, as Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), he is expected to have a test check of 10% of the beneficiaries and it is the Suresh/Manager/A11 and Coordinator/Mohan/L.W.7 who had given reports of physical verification and certificate, thereafter the petitioner signed the vouchers and other documents. Further, as Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), he is expected to have a test check of 10% of the beneficiaries and it is the Suresh/Manager/A11 and Coordinator/Mohan/L.W.7 who had given reports of physical verification and certificate, thereafter the petitioner signed the vouchers and other documents. When the petitioner conducted 10% test check, there was no complaint of impersonation or bogus applications. In this case, the physical verification, valuation certificate and the Engineer’s certificate obtained and usual procedures followed as per the Government Order. That being so, after 4½ years now the petitioner is prosecuted. None of the Villagers, namely, L.W.9 to L.W.28, stated anything against the petitioner. Likewise, the Officers assigned duty in the Office of the Block Development Officer (Schemes), namely, L.W.2 to L.W.5 and L.W.7 not stated anything against the petitioner. Surprisingly, L.W.6, who was posted in the office of the Block Development Officer, Mannargudi Taluk as Accounts Assistant/Project Coordinator (Health) from the year 2014-2021 deposed against the petitioner. 12. On 15.02.2018, L.W.4/Saraswathi, Assistant dealing with SBM(G) Scheme was on leave, it is now projected that at that time, L.W.6 was called by the petitioner, asked to prepare the cash register and cheque since the funds have to be released immediately and at that time, Office Assistant/Thirunavukarasu and Coordinator/Mohan were along with him. L.W.6 further informed that the Overseer Prabhakaran/A7 already issued valuation certificate and connected documents submitted, hence he was forced to record a sum of Rs.4,62,000/- to be released to 77 beneficiaries in the Cash Book 2017-2018 Volume-II Pages 180 to 182, prepared Voucher No.340 dated 15.02.2018 and Cheque No.099508 signed by Deputy Block Development Officer, the petitioner/Block Development Officer and amount transferred to the account of the Contractor Baskaran/A8. It is to be seen that though L.W.6 states that on 15.02.2018 he was forced by the petitioner to prepare the cash book, voucher and cheque but till 17.11.2022 for nearly 4½ years he had kept quiet, not whispered anything or made any complaint to the superior officers and for the first time, such statement given which is contrary to the documents. The documents are contemporary documents and it is not a case that the documents, later prepared or inserted facilitating entries in the records justifying release of funds. The documents are contemporary documents and it is not a case that the documents, later prepared or inserted facilitating entries in the records justifying release of funds. It is also to be seen that the Office Assistant Thirunavukarasu and Coordinator Mohan who are said to be present at that time, the said Thirunavukarasu is neither an accused nor a witness. L.W.7/Mohan not corroborated the statement of L.W.6. The statement of L.W.6 is a stand alone statement without any material corroboration. 13. L.W.4/Saraswathi confirms that she was not on duty on 15.02.2018 and it was L.W.6 who had written the cash book and prepared vouchers, confirms earlier the same procedure followed. Further, with regard to the similarity in the names of the beneficiary, she confirms that she enquired A7 who clarified that in Villages, people having similar names is common. Nowhere the procedure which was followed by the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) deviated or violated by the petitioner as could be seen from the statement of L.W.4 and L.W.5. Further, it is to be seen that as per the Government Order in G.O.(2D) No.66 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2) Department dated 12.06.2023, the said Mohan/L.W.7 who was appointed as Coordinator on a consolidated pay, proceedings issued to remove him from service for not visiting the beneficiaries, inspecting the construction of toilets and found to have denied the beneficiaries of their rightful benefits along with A8 and A9. The stand alone statement of L.W.6/Accounts Assistant and Cashier against the petitioner is after 4½ years contra to the contemporary documents. The statements of L.W.2 to L.W.5 and L.W.7 are in favour of the petitioner. Added to it, the petitioner’s statement earlier recorded gives justifiable explanation. In this case the prosecution projected four charges and as regards the petitioner, Charge No.2 is projected against him. From the uncontroverted statement of the witnesses and documents, it is seen that there is no case made out to proceed against the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner from the above case. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur in Crl. M.P. No. 3114 of 2024 dated 06.11.2024 is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the case in Spl. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur in Crl. M.P. No. 3114 of 2024 dated 06.11.2024 is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the case in Spl. C.C. No. 10 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.