URMILA SOROUT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging inquiry report dated 08.11.2011 submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Hodal, holding the petitioner guilty on the ground that it is contrary to law; for quashing letter dated 04.02.2012 issued by the Director, Department of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, to the Financial Commissioner to take action against the petitioner on the aforesaid inquiry report; for quashing order dated 20.03.2012 by which City Magistrate, Palwal, has been appointed to hold regular inquiry though the City Magistrate has no jurisdiction to do it; for quashing show cause notice dated 02.04.2012; and for issuance of Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, which was sent by him to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.02.2011 for registration of the FIR and on the same day, FIR No. 54 dated 18.02.2011, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC was registered at Police Station, Hodal, against the petitioner and others. The investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hodal, who submitted a cancellation report on 02.03.2011 holding that the dispute is regarding the value of the furniture but there is no embezzlement. It is also alleged in the petition that after submission of the cancellation report in the Court, notice thereof was issued to the complainant. Respondent No. 7, who had earlier filed the complaint, filed another complaint dated 18.04.2011 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Palwal, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which cognizance was taken and the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 11.07.2011 under Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also alleged that the order dated 11.07.2011 has been challenged by way of CRM -M -22992 -2011 before this Court which is pending after issuance of notice.

(2.) IT is also alleged that respondent No. 7 filed another complaint on 21.12.2010, alleging embezzlement in the municipal funds, to the Sub Divisional Officer, Hodal, which was marked by him to the Junior Engineer, PWD (B&R), Hodal, for conducting inquiry. This move was objected to by the petitioner by making application dated 24.10.2011 to the Director. Department of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, doubting credibility of Sub Divisional Officer and Junior Engineer on the ground that they are under the pressure of Udhai Bhan Singh, Ex. MLA, who is supporting respondent No. 7. However, the enquiry was conducted by the Junior Engineer, PWD (B&R), Hodal, and vide his report dated 25.10.2011 hold the negligence of the petitioner in paying of Rs. 3,00,070/ - extra while doing the earth filling work in the streets of Hodal. The petitioner has also made reference of "No Confidence Motion" at the instance of respondent No. 7 in connivance with Udhai Bhan Singh, Ex. MLA, but despite levelling all sort of allegations against Udhai Bhan Singh, she has not arrayed him as a party enabling him to file reply to the allegations made against him. Be that as it may, the following 5 allegations have been found by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hodal, against the petitioner in his report dated 08.11.2011 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner:

(3.) REGARDING complaint of embezzlement/irregularities in the purchase of furniture.