O R D E R

Petitioner-Pratap Singh has filed the present writ petition invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner, who is the President of Gram Sudhar Sabha, Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, has impleaded Ex-Pradhan and Ex- Ward Member of Gram Panchayat Gabli Dari as respondents No. 4 and 5, as, according to him, they have done a lot of bungling in the funds of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MNREGA’).

3. One Nirdesh Kumar, a resident of Gram Panchayat Gabli Dari, is stated to have moved one such complaint, mentioning therein that respondents No. 4 and 5 had wrongly marked the presence in the muster rolls, for the works, which were being executed by the then Gram Panchayat under the MNREGA Scheme, whereas, at the same time, both these persons were present in the meeting of Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha and they had wrongly claimed the wages for the same period, under the MNREGA Scheme.

4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that when no action was taken by the authorities on the representation/ complaint (Annexure P-1) made by Nirdesh Kumar, then he had obtained the information under the provisions of Right to Information Act. In response to the said request for providing the information, it has been informed that an inquiry has been conducted by the Inquiry Officer and the allegations against respondents No. 4 and 5 were proved, however, they have been warned to be cautious in future and the amount, so received by them, has been ordered to be recovered from them.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he, alongwith other members of the Panchayat, was waiting for the decision, to be taken by the authorities, on the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, but, no action has been taken against them. Thereafter, a legal notice was also issued to respondents No. 1 and 2, apprising them about the fact, that the inquiry has been conducted and Audit Officer of the Panchayat, has also raised objection, in making the payments to respondents No. 4 and 5.

Hence, a request has been made to take a stern action against the persons who have been indicted.

6. However, in the month of September, 2012, respondent No. 6 has submitted a reply to the petitioner, in which the allegations against respondent No. 4, qua the fact, that she got her name entered into the muster roll of the MNREGA work, have been denied. The said attempt of respondent No. 6 has been stated to be an effort to save respondents No. 4 and 5, from the penalty, as in the inquiry, both of them, i.e. respondents No. 4 and

5, have been warned.

7. In addition to this, it has been alleged that respondents No. 4 and 5 have also misappropriated the funds, which, they had allegedly shown to be paid to Shri Chuhar Singh and Shri Saroop Chand, as these two persons were never engaged for the construction of the retaining wall. This information has also been obtained by the petitioner, under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The amount, which has been sanctioned for the construction of Samudaik Bhawan in the Panchayat area, has also been stated to be embezzled by respondents No. 4 and 5. In this regard, a representation was also made to respondent No. 2, in which, it has specifically been held that despite release of ₹ 9,54,000/-, for the construction of Samudaik Bhawan, in Gabli Dari Panchayat, the building has not been constructed, but, no action has been taken by the respondents.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents are hand in gloves with respondents No. 4 and 5 and as such, a clean chit has been given to them, by stating that respondent No. 4 had deposited a sum of ₹ 900/- in the account of the Panchayat and she has been warned to be careful in future.

9. The petitioner has also filed Civil Writ Petitions No. 2094 and 9028 of 2012, titled as Pratap Chand versus State, before this Court, in which the allegations with regar