in these two reports are contradictory. That apart, even if Ext.P5 report is read in its entirety, all that is stated is that without ensuring the identity of the beneficiary and purely acting upon the identification done by the Ward Member of the Panchayat, the petitioner distributed goats to the beneficiaries of the Scheme. As already seen, the petitioner was a stranger at Mundakkayam, where the irregularity is alleged to have found. If she was a stranger at that place, she cannot be faulted for having relied on the identification done by the Panchayat Ward Member, who is also a part of the Grama Sabha, which selected the beneficiaries. Therefore, even if a mistake has been committed by the petitioner in relying on the identification done by the Ward Member, that was a mistake simplicitor and will not amount to a misconduct warranting proceedings against her. That apart, Ext.P5 report is totally ignored. It shows that the complainant, at whose instance the whole proceedings have been initiated, herself has denied of having made even a complaint. She also affirmed of having received the goats. In such circumstance, I feel the proceedings against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P6 is unwarranted.
