Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABURAM SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baburam Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 37476 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11684 (18 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37476 of 2006

Badruram Singh

Versus

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner in the present writ petition is assailing the validity of the letter dated 06.06.2006 by means of which Special Secretary, State Government has sent letter to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj informing and intimating that the decision has been taken by the State Government that against petitioner and other persons for misappropriation the government fund and committing irregularities, under the relevant Section of Indian Penal Code, First Information Report be lodged.

Brief background of the case is that by Government Order dated 19.11.2004 Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Ten lacs)  were sanctioned in Awasthapana Fund for Nagar panchayat Siswa Bazar for constructing Road/Nala and Nali and it was also mentioned that if surplus fund is left after paying the salary of the employees of the Nagar Panchayats same shall be transferred for constructing the Roads and Nalies. It has also been contended that advertisement was made for constructing Cement concrete road and pursuant thereto tenders were invited and same were received and accepted by the Adhyaksha of Nagar Panchayat, Siswa Bazar. Petitioner is Junior Engineer of Nagar Panchayat Siswa Bazar Maharajganj. Serious allegations came forward that the amount in question has been diverted and misappropriated. Petitioner is reading only the operative part of the report where as the report in its entirely reflects material against the petitioner also and based on same, petitioner has been placed under suspension and charge sheet has been issued. In law there is no prohibition imposed upon the employer in case he has chosen for departmental action, not to  lodge F.I.R. in case of offence having being committed.  Petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension and chargesheet has been issued to him on 16.05.2006. Not only this State Government took decision that persons who are involved in diversion of fund and acting contrary to guidelines qua the same First Information Report be lodged. Once there is material before the State Government that financial irregularities have been place in contravention of the Government Order, amount in question has been diverted and misappropriated, then there is nothing to prevent the State Government from issuing direction as has been sought to be done in the present case.

Decision in question in the present case is thoughtful decision keeping in view the diversion and misappropriation of fund and once State Government is satisfied on this score and  has resolved that F.I.R. be lodged then said directive issued cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity whatsoever.

Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner that his complicity is not there and report which was sent to the State Government on 24.12.2005 was confined qua Sri Jagdish Prasad Jaisawal and Sri Prakash Shahi and name of petitioner is being unnecessarily dragged in. It is true that the report dated 24.12.2005 which was submitted therein action against only two persons were recommended. Entire report in question has been seen there are references qua the petitioner also.  Enquiry was got conducted by Sri J.S. Mishra and report was submitted to District Magistrate, District Magistrate noted various serious irregularities in the same, and thereafter on 24.12.2005, recommended for action against the Executive Officer as well as the then President. State Government after receiving the said report on 21.03.2006 asked Director, Local Body, for attachment of petitioner and suspension alongwith the Executive Officer in the office of District Magistrate.  On the basis of entire material available before the State Government, administrative decision has been taken for lodging First Information Report. Merely because direction for lodging the First Information Report has been given same in no way effects and defeat the right of the petitioner, inasmuch as after First Information Report would be lodged then law would take its own course.

Consequently, this is not a fit case for interference, as such writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

18.07.2006

Dhruv        


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.