SAMPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh in respect of the act of the petitioner and others in withdrawing money on the basis of forged document, communication dated 10.3.17 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Inquiry), directing the District Collector (Vigilance) to lodge FIR against the petitioner and others and the charge sheet issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ("the Act") initiating inquiry for removal of the petitioner, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Galad on account of his alleged involvement in the act of misconduct.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the SDO has not conducted the inquiry in fair manner. It is submitted that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before submitting the report. Learned counsel submitted that from bare perusal of the job card, it is apparent that Smt. Sukhi Devi had worked as labourer from 13.6.14 to 26.6.14 at the site during construction of Toilet at her house. Learned counsel submitted that SDO had no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry inasmuch as, as per Rule 5 & 6 of the MNREGA (Grievance Redressal) Rules, 2006 ("Rules of 2006"), only Programme Officer is empowered to conduct the inquiry. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner has not misused the fund or committed any forgery and thus, he has been wrongly implicated in the matter.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.