SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard and gone through the record.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents No.1 to 5, with respect to an inquiry report submitted by Panchayat Inspector, in respect of allegations against respondent No.6, a Pardhan of Panchayat, that she has embezzled public money, while executing certain works allotted to her Panchayat. According to the petitioner, despite the Panchayat Inspector having found respondent No.6 guilty of misappropriation of public funds, vide report, copy Annexure P-2, respondents No. 1 to 5 are not taking any action against her.

(3.) It is not denied in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 that Panchayat Inspector was required to enquire into certain allegations against respondent No.6 and the said Inspector has submitted inquiry report, copy Annexure P-2. It is stated in the reply that some documents have been sent for form the Inquiry Officer, i.e. the Panchayat Officer, and action will be taken on receipt of those documents.