K.S. SUDHIR KUMAR S/O S. SIDDARAMU Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING ZILLA PANCHAYAT AND SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O CHIKKAMADAIAH FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner approached this Court with the following prayers: Wherefore, the Petitioners most humbly pray that this Hen'ble Court, be pleased to grant the following relief/r:

(2.) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it has been stated as under: 2) Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division Mandya, in his report, dated 05.06.2009 stated that Shri M.S. Sambashivan, SDA, Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, PRE Sub -Division, Mandya has misappropriated the stores material worth of Rs. 1,04,468. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya, by his order dated 15.06.2009 suspended Sri M.S. Sambashivan, pending enquiry. Shri Sambashivan made allegations against third Respondent and Sri D.K. Puttaswamy Setty. The Petitioner gave the complaint dated 21.08.2009 to first Respondent. Assistant Secretary (Admn), Zilla Panchayat, Mandya at the instance of first Respondent held the enquiry and submitted his Report dated 2.11.2009. According to that report, Rs. 24,192/ - drawn from the bank on 10.04.2008 and Rs. 1,68,219/ drawn from the bank on 19.4.2008 were disbursed to Section Officers who carried on the works and shown to have given on 31.03.2008 and this mistake has occurred due to the wrong impression that since SGRY Scheme came to an end on 31.03.2008 and accounts also should be closed on 31.03.2008; no misappropriation of funds has taken place He in his report, stated that Sri Sambashivan is directly and indirectly responsible for the complaint and also stated that there is no substance in the allegations made by Sambashivan against his two colleagues and they were made due to personal animosity.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the instant writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the factual position depicted in paragraph -2 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Needless to mention, that m view of the factual position depicted in para -2 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it will be imperative for Respondent No. l to take the matter, emerging out of the complaint dated 21.08.2009, to its logical conclusion