JAMAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Nisha Tiwari holding brief of Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

(2.) From the allegations against the respondent No.6 as well as the Village Development Officer contending that the respondent No.6, while he was Gaon Pradhan, has misappropriated and defalcated funds of the Gram Sabha. The discrepancy was inquired into and the payments made were not found to be genuine vide notice dated 28.9.2012, copy whereof is Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.

(3.) The petitioner contends that he had been continuously pursuing the matter but vide letter dated 19.2.2016, the petitioner was informed that since the respondent No.6 has already ceased to be a Gram Pradhan 5 years hence, therefore the proceeding under Sec. 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 cannot be continued against him.