Hiralal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1275 of 2012 • Hiralal Sahu S/o Bishwanath, aged about 29 years, Presently Working As Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat - Darri, Janpad Panchayat - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (Cg) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG)
2. Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Durg, District Durg (CG)
3. The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Cg)
4. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Durg, Distt. Durg (Cg)
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara (CG)
6. Alam Das Dahariya S/o Shri Nakched Dahariya R/o Village Darri, Block - Nawagarh, District Bemetara (Cg) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy AG. For Respondent No.6 : Shri R.K. Pali on behalf of Shri PP Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 15/01/2016
1. The petitioner is Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Darri, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh (wrongly mentioned as Sarpanch in the
cause title). He is aggrieved by the award passed by the Lokpal, MGNREGA , District Durg whereby the Lokpal has recommended for lodging of FIR against the petitioner, Sarpanch, Rojgar Sahayak and another Secretary of the Panchayat who was posted before the petitioner's joining.
2. Respondent No.6 preferred a complaint before the Lokpal on 17.10.2011 alleging fraudulent withdrawal of the amount from the bank on the basis of forged muster roll wherein the persons have been shown to have worked twice, minor and non-existent persons have been shown to have worked; similarly several other labourers who have actually worked were not mentioned in the muster roll and were thus not paid wages. It was also alleged that several works have remained incomplete, yet the entire amount has been withdrawn showing the work to have completed.
3. On receipt of complaint, Lokpal issued notice to the petitioner and other office bearers of the Panchayat and after recording of the statements of the villagers, it is concluded that the allegation of misappropriation or defalcation of the amount has been proved. The Lokpal has recorded a categorical finding in paras-6 to 18 to hold that: • "Wife of Rojgar Sahayak was admitted in the hospital for delivery, yet wages for the said period have been withdrawn. • Nephew of the Sarpanch was working in the Cooperative Society, yet his name has been entered in the muster roll and payment has been made.
• 2 teachers working in the Shishu Mandir School have been
shown to have worked by mentioning their names in the muster roll.
• Minor children Sonu @ Basant, Omprakash, Gajanand, Geeta and Chandrabati have been shown to have worked and paid wages.
• Several persons namely, Govind, Ramkali, Kailash, Omprakash, Ramnath, Indra, Ramratan, Kisun Ram and Bhagwat have never worked but payments have been made in their names.
• Similarly, one Anita wife of Sanath was shown to have worked in 2 different projects on the same date/period. There is repetition of name of one individual in several muster roll. • The work has not been completed but the entire payment has been released.
• One Dukalha has made statement that his wife Lalita Bai was admitted in the hospital from 7.2.2011 to 12.2.2011, yet forged payment has been made in her name for this period. However, his wife has not received any payment. Similar statement has been made by Smt. Arti and Shri Umashankar Dahriya whose wife has never worked but payment was shown to be made in her name.
• One Rojgar Sahayak Shatrughan has made a statement that his name was included in the muster roll but he did not want the amount because he has never worked, however, payment has been withdrawn in his name, therefore, he seeks an enquiry. • There are several other instances like the above which have been mentioned in para 10-17, however, to avoid repetition of finding of similar nature, this Court is not burdening this order.
4. Suffice it would be to say that there are ample evidence on record in the form of statements made by several persons that the petitioner and other office bearers like Sarpanch, Rojgar Sahayak, previous Secretaries, have committed illegality and irregularity including misappropriation in relation to MGNREGA funds.
5. The petitioner's counsel has argued that the petitioner joined as
Panchayat Secretary on 5.7.2011 and the complaint was lodged on 17.10.2011, therefore, it is clear that illegalities were not committed during his tenure.
6. In this regard, the finding recorded in para-9 of the award needs mention wherein payment was obtained by Rojgar Sahayak on 28.7.2011 which is the period after joining of the petitioner and the withdrawal could not have been made without signature of the Panchayat Secretary i.e. the petitioner.
7. Even if the entire payment was not made during the petitioner's tenure but part of the payment was made. The petitioner would still be liable for investigation.
8. In any case, at this stage of the proceeding when the police is yet to make investigation, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was not at all involved in commission of illegality/misappropriation. In matters concerning misuse of funds at the grass-root level or for that matter, matters concerning corruption at whatever level needs not be countenanced. As and when it is brought to the notice of the appropriate authority or Court that a prima facie case is made out, it is for the concerned investigating agency to thrash out the issue in course of investigation. Article 226 of the Constitution is not jurisdiction to be exercised in such matters at the threshold.
9. It has also been argued that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself.
10.The record of the Lokpal summoned by this Court has been made available by learned Deputy Advocate General. The record contains joint reply submitted by the petitioner, Rojgar Sahayak and Sarpanch. In this reply, the petitioner has neither mentioned that because of his joining only on 5.7.2011 he is not responsible for any act or omission, the petitioner has not even asked for an opportunity to adduce evidence. The proceeding before MGNREGA, Lokpal is not in the nature of a regular trial. If the petitioner wanted to lead evidence, he could have moved an application or produced documents in rebuttal. But there is no such application on record wherein the petitioner has sought permission to adduce evidence.
11.In the considered opinion of this Court, once the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he has participated in the enquiry, principles of natural justice have been duly complied with. 12.For all the aforesaid reasons and for the fact that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and sit over the order passed by the Lokpal as an appellate authority, there is no substance in the writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve