KULDEEP MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-petitioner has laid this intra court appeal assailing the impugned order dated 19th of September, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11893/2013 filed by him was dismissed as premature.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellant was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Anant, Panchayat Samiti Dhariyavad, Pratapgarh in the year 2006 for five years tenure. As Sarpanh of Gram Panchayat Anant, the appellant sanctioned some of the construction works under Maha NAREGA and E.G.S and those works were accomplished by the Gram Panchayat. The works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat under the aforesaid schemes, from the year 2006-07 to 2008-09, were under scanner as the local MLA lodged a complaint attributing serious irregularities. Taking cognizance of the complaint, Project Officer, E.G.S., by its order dated 10th December, 2009 ordered inquiry and pursuant thereto inquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Dhariyavad and report was submitted on 3rd of May, 2012. In the report, the concerned Executive Engineer has found that the works undertaken by the Gram Panchayat Dhariyavad under the NAREGA Scheme are absolutely fake. However, in the report, no individual was indicted for the serious irregularities and nothing was attributed to a particular work for taking appropriate action. Moreover, the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant. The appellant has also asserted that he made endeavour to solicit requisite information under R.T.I. Act about the inquiry report and the procedure adopted during inquiry, but a very vague and evasive reply was given and it was intimated to the appellant that inquiry was conducted in presence of Ward Panchas and responsible persons (motbirs). To negate this assertion, which was conveyed to the appellant pursuant to his RTI application, the appellant has also placed on record a letter submitted by some of the ward panchas, wherein they have stated that they are totally unaware about the inquiry. Placing on record, the order dated 12th September, 2013, which was impugned in the writ petition, the appellant has assailed the same as violative of principles of natural justice. In the order dated 12th September, 2013, there was a clear recital that appellant is required to deposit a sum of 3,36,768/-, else he will be prosecuted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Kuldeep Meena, the appellant present in person, has urged that impugned order dated 12th September, 2013 has visited him with evil and civil consequences, but the same has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Meena has further argued that while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not examined the order dated dated 12th September, 2013 thoroughly, and therefore, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that writ petition is premature cannot be sustained. Mr. Meena has strenuously urged that the competent authority while passing the order dated 12th September, 2013 has decided to recover the amount, and therefore, nothing more was desirable in the matter, which is sufficient to infer that the matter stands concluded resulting in adversely affecting the rights of the appellant. Emphasising the threat under the order that if the requisite amount is not deposited, the appellant shall face the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code further fortifies that the order dated 12th September, 2013 is a final decision by the competent authority denoting in clear and unequivocal terms the fate accomplish, and therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court non-suiting the appellant by treating the writ petition premature cannot be sustained.