Judgment:
Kumar ViNo.2013.09.20 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16454 of 2013 [1].**** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16454 of 2013 Date of decision:12.09.2013 Deep Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.5547 of 2008 which was disposed of on 03.04.2008, with the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although enquiry was conducted by the District Revenue Officer, Rewari, however, the Enquiry Officer did not go into the question of embezzlement of funds and nothing was heard in this regard from the respondents though representation dated 26.11.2006 to the Director, Department of Panchayat, Haryana was made.
Notice of motion to official respondents.
Mr.B.S.Rana, Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of official Kumar ViNo.2013.09.20 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16454 of 2013 [2].**** respondents.
This petition can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation dated 26.11.2006 (Annexure P-1).by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 08.08.2008, absolved respondent no.7 but insofar as respondent no.8 is concerned, a show cause notice was issued to her under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.).On the basis of the report of the preliminary inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, vide his order dated 10.10.2008, ordered for regular inquiry against respondent no.8 and she was put under suspension during the pendency of the inquiry.
The petitioner also made a complaint to the Lokayukta, Haryana, who had passed the order dated 17.11.2011 in which it was observed that in a detailed inquiry, nothing has been found against respondent no.8 but insofar as respondent no.7 is concerned, he was held liable for recovery of `32,055/-.
It is submitted that the Lokayukta, Haryana, had found that against the recovery proceedings, respondent no.7 has filed appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which has not been decided.
It was observed that if any such appeal is filed, the same be decided expeditiously and if no appeal has been found to have been filed then the recovery proceedings for the aforesaid amount be effected and the Kumar ViNo.2013.09.20 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16454 of 2013 [3].**** complaint was finally disposed of.
However, the Competent Authority was directed to send the action taken report within 3 months.
In the aforesaid background of the facts, the petitioner has submitted that action be taken against respondent nos.7 and 8 in terms of the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Lokayukta, Haryana.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner may approach the Lokayukta, Haryana, under the relevant of provisions of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002, for the redressal of his grievance at the fiRs.instance before approaching this Court.
Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
September 12, 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge