Disposed

Tara Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024CWP/9452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought action on an enquiry report alleging misappropriation of government funds by a private respondent and registration of a case. Respondents stated the complaint was enquired, a warning issued as no financial loss was found. Petition disposed of with liberty to challenge the warning order in appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to file appropriate proceedings challenging the order dated 19.07.2024 imposing warning on respondent No. 5.

Tara Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13077

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.9452 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.12.2024

¶4

____________________________ Tara Devi	___________________ Versus	______________________ ……...Petitioner
State of HP & Ors.		…....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1-State.

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:

¶11

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to take an appropriate action as per the enquiry report dated 06.04.2024 Annexure P-5 as per law in time bound manner and also directed to lodge FIR and registered the criminal case against the respondent No. 5 for cheating and disbursing Public money dishonestly, arbitrary manner.”

¶12

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that despite there being enquiry report dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) , no action

¶13

¶14

2024:HHC:13077

¶15

is being taken against the private respondent No. 5, who allegedly misappropriated the Government funds.

¶16

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed reply under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan, perusal whereof reveals that after receipt of complaint from the petitioner with regard to alleged misappropriation of funds by the private respondent, matter was enquired by the Committee comprising of SEBPO, LSEO and Junior Engineer. Afore Enquiry Committee found the allegations against the private respondent to be correct and accordingly, show cause notice dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure R-3) came to be served upon respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Since no financial loss to the State Exchequer was found to have been caused by respondent No. 5, a warning has been issued to respondent No. 5 to be careful in future. It is quite apparent from the afore reply filed by the respondents that complaint having been filed by the petitioners has been taken to its logical end and at present, as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.

¶17

Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to

¶18

¶19

2024:HHC:13077

¶20

order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure R-5) , whereby afore authority

¶21

though found some of allegations/charges, levelled against the private respondent to be correct, but only a warning has been issued to the said respondent. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

December 03, 2024 (Sunil)

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Tara Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Anand Moudgil Vs State Transport Authority Hp and Anr.

Vinay Kumar and Others Vs the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and Others

M/S Gmh Organics Unit-Ii Vs the Hpsebl and Others

M/S Tirupati Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others

M/S Tirupati Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others