Pankaj Sharma v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

CWP-22393-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22393-2017 Date of Decision: May 01, 2024 Pankaj Sharma ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Ms.Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Sharma Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.5.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the inquiry order, dated 16.12.2016, Annexure P-9, whereby the accused persons involved in misappropriation of Panchayat funds have exonerated by conducting an inquiry in an illegal, irrational, unfair and partial manner. It is also prayed to direct the respondents to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry in the case pertaining to embezzlement of panchayat funds by Vigilance Department, Haryana, or by some other independent agency. Learned State counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the reply, dated 17.07.2018, filed by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. It has been submitted in the reply that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, cognizance has already been taken by the respondents/State and the inquiry was marked to Deputy Chief Executive Officer. On MEENU 2024.05.02 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22393-2017 -2receiving the report, the Deputy Commissioner had issued the directions vide letter dated 27.12.2016 to the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Thanesar, to recover the amount from the Ex.Sarpanch and in pursuance to the same, the recovery has already been effected. Learned State counsel submits that grievances raised by the petitioner in the present petition have already been redressed and nothing more survives in the present petition for adjudication and hence the present petition be disposed of. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that he opts the reply filed by the State. He further submits that necessary action has already been taken by the respondents/State and, thus, no cause of action survives to the petitioner and hence the present petition be disposed of.

In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, it is apparent that on the complaint of the petitioner, inquiry has already been conducted and concluded also and in pursuance of the same, recovery has also been effected and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition.

Thus, the present petition stands disposed of. May 01, 2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2024.05.02 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document