SHAMSHER Vs. ANURAG AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the Act), is a classical illustration of obstructing and impeding the Administration of Justice. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the undertaking dated 5.8.2003 based on the statement made by the respondents through the State counsel was false. It is appropriate to mention that on the basis of the statement Civil Writ Petition No. 11144 of 2003, filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the Division Bench has issued directions to respondents. As a consequence the petitioner has suffered an irreparable loss and a prayer has been made for punishing the respondents in accordance with law.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Smt. Channo Devi was functioning as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ferozepur, District Kaithal. There were serious allegations, inter alia, of misappropriation against her. Respondent No. 2 Shri Chand Ram, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla, had made an assessment report of the development works executed by the Sarpanch. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and prima facie allegations were proved against her. On 19.12.2002, respondent No. 1, who was Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal at that time, passed an order placing the Sarpanch under suspension. Accordingly, while charge-sheeting the Sarpanch a regular enquiry was ordered against her. The order dated 19.12.2002, passed by respondent No. 1 reads as under :-

(3.) THE petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 11144 of 2003, after giving detailed facts as mentioned in the preceding para of this order. The petitioner had alleged that Shri Chand Ram, respondent No. 2, initiated the process of regular enquiry and examined several witnesses including the complainant, who had filed a complaint against the Sarpanch. It was further alleged in para No. 4 that the Sarpanch had influenced Chand Ram, and as a consequence Chand Ram was not conducting the regular enquiry by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and other witnesses, who were to prove allegations against the Sarpanch. The allegation then is that the petitioner along with other inhabitants of the village, who were affected with the misdeed of the Sarpanch, had approached respondent No. 1, the then Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, who had also given false assurance to them. A complaint was also claimed to have been filed before the Deputy Commissioner against Shri Chand Ram, District Development and Panchayat Officer, respondent No. 2. A request was made for transferring the Enquiry Officer Chand Ram and entrusting the enquiry to some other officer. In para 5, it was alleged that the son of the Sarpanch was an active participant in the then Government belonging to INDL Party, who was putting pressure on Shri Anurag Aggarwal, Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 1, as well as Shri Chand Ram, respondent No. 2, and they were favouring the Sarpanch. In para 6 it was alleged that the petitioner along with other inhabitants of the village were likely to suffer in the regular enquiry, which was being conducted by Shri Chand Ram, respondent No. 2, as the witnesses were not being examined and that Shri Chand Ram was giving the petitioner as well as other witnesses filthy abuses and was putting pressure on the witnesses for making a statement in favour of Sarpanch. An apprehension was expressed that on account of the conduct of respondent No. 2 Chand Ram, the allegations against Sarpanch may not be proved. It is appropriate to mention that Chand Ram, respondent No. 2, was impleaded by name in the Amended Civil Writ Petition No. 11144 of 2003, besides Channo Devi, Sarpanch, Amar Singh, M.L.A., Bagh Singh, M.L.A. The petition also disclosed in para 10, mis-utilisation of funds belonging to the Panchayat at the hands of the Sarpanch. It was alleged that despite the suspension order, which was upheld by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary and by this Court, she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 7 lacs, which have been mis-utlized by her and no development work had been done. The Sarpanch is alleged to have obtained thumb mark (LTI) of one Panch Member on the resolution for withdrawing the amount of Rs. 7 lacs by representing that he was to get the old age pension. Allegation is that after suspension the Sarpanch did not have any right to withdraw an amount of Rs. 7 lacs. Copies of the bank statements had been attached with the plaintiff, which were marked as Annexures P-9 and P-10. A perusal of the Saving Bank Account No. 9616 (P-10) shows that on 3.2.2003, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 20,000/-, was withdrawn by self cheque Nos. 45 and 46. On 18.2.2003, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- had been withdrawn. Specific allegations were levelled in para 15 against two MLAs Amar Singh and Bagh Singh, who were impleaded in the amended civil writ petition, for exerting undue pressure on the Enquiry Officer Chand Ram. Those allegations make interesting reading, which are as under :-